Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
MINe 109 a écrit :
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
MINe 109 a écrit :
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
MINe 109 a écrit :
In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers? I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue. If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. ScottW You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let your hatreds interfere with your common sense. No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. You should understand that unless you really hate homosexuals. Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in 1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to miss an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price to get the right ratio between first timers and reups. And calculate in those that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon. My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising revenue. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said. Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M or having never made the $2.3M? Anyway, they changed their business model to rely on advertising revenue. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. No problem, hope you get some snow . ScottW |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers? I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue. If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. ScottW You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let your hatreds interfere with your common sense. No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. You should understand that unless you really hate homosexuals. Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in 1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to miss an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price to get the right ratio between first timers and reups. And calculate in those that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon. My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising revenue. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said. Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M or having never made the $2.3M? Anyway, they changed their business model to rely on advertising revenue. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. No problem, hope you get some snow . ScottW |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... I'd be more interested in comments to this post on audioasylum. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/gen...es/298159.html Is Stereophile now largely fund by advertising rather than subscibers? I see 12 months subscriptions for less than $1 per issue. If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from almost $2.4M to less than $100K. ScottW You are making quite an unreasonable extrapolation based upon one case, even if it were true. Don't let your hatreds interfere with your common sense. No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. You should understand that unless you really hate homosexuals. Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? ScottW They were never a 'solid' $35 per year. Introductory rates were always between $12 and $15 per year since I first subscribed in 1988. The first renewal offer you would get would be $35. If you would hold out, you would eventually get an offer for $15, but would have to miss an issue. Point is, you need to 'average' the subscription price to get the right ratio between first timers and reups. And calculate in those that might buy a single issue for about $6 at the local stereo salon. My discussion was "subscription revenue". Your assertion is that Stereophile never had substantial subscription revenues. I find that difficult to believe as I understant did not have any advertising revenue. I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point. I think the point is valid, Stereophiles subscription revenue has declined though perhaps not as dramatically as I said. Which is worse? To decline subscription revenue by ~$2.3M or having never made the $2.3M? Anyway, they changed their business model to rely on advertising revenue. If you didn't know this, you have my apologies. No problem, hope you get some snow . ScottW |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think. Hypocrite. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think. Hypocrite. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:58:07 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: No you sound like Sanders. I don't "hate" Stereophile. I do hate people telling me I hate things I don't hate. Now *that's* choice after you tried to tell me what *I* think. Hypocrite. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote: MINe 109 a écrit : In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages that could have had real content in them). Scott Gardner |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote: MINe 109 a écrit : In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages that could have had real content in them). Scott Gardner |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:10:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote: MINe 109 a écrit : In article m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01, "ScottW" wrote: Now explain what is unreasonable. I've seen a couple of post indicate Stereophile subscription rates were $35 a year and now are about $12. 3 years subscriptions are much less and have to be less than the cost of delivering the magazine. What is the unreasonable extrapolation? Lowering subscriptions to attract more readers in order to raise advertising rates is a time-honored strategy for publishers. Another way to look at a magazine is the proportion of editorial content to advertising. More editorial pages (music reviews, blind tests, multichannel gear reviews) come at the expense of advertising pages. Too much advertising comes at the cost of alienating readers, generally speaking. When magazines are becoming manufacturers' catalogs. ;-) I haven't seen anything this heinous in stereo magazines, but there's a motocycle accessories company called "Chapparel" (sp?) that takes up the last dozen full pages in several magazines. It's almost like a pull-out catalog. The only thing that keeps it from being more annoying is that since they have the entire pages, you can easily skip past it, knowing you haven't missed anything (other than twelve pages that could have had real content in them). Scott Gardner |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:26:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. Why use the word "alleged"? The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 So, the percentage of Home Theater sales hasn't been increasing while traditional sales haven't been so explosive? I note that you don't wonder how the HT side has done. You traditionally ignore what you want to ignore, so this is hardly surprising. Additionally, we haven't been in a recession for the past 3 years, which happens to exactly coincide with a decrease in Stereophile's figures? I wonder how other magazines would track during the same period. I also STILL wonder how much the HT magazine's sales "make up" for any downturn in Stereophile's figures. It's quite possible that total revenues have almost *doubled* through the division of two magazines, *if* the HT side hasn't cannibalized circulation (and if it's only taken 10 - 20,000 subscribers from the fold while adding far more, then there's no real cannibalization). And it's the return to the stockholders of the parent company that's the only important thing. Wanna try again? I guess in your world, 81,668 is 71,040. s****** |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:26:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. Why use the word "alleged"? The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 So, the percentage of Home Theater sales hasn't been increasing while traditional sales haven't been so explosive? I note that you don't wonder how the HT side has done. You traditionally ignore what you want to ignore, so this is hardly surprising. Additionally, we haven't been in a recession for the past 3 years, which happens to exactly coincide with a decrease in Stereophile's figures? I wonder how other magazines would track during the same period. I also STILL wonder how much the HT magazine's sales "make up" for any downturn in Stereophile's figures. It's quite possible that total revenues have almost *doubled* through the division of two magazines, *if* the HT side hasn't cannibalized circulation (and if it's only taken 10 - 20,000 subscribers from the fold while adding far more, then there's no real cannibalization). And it's the return to the stockholders of the parent company that's the only important thing. Wanna try again? I guess in your world, 81,668 is 71,040. s****** |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:26:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. The alleged split happened in 1994, given that the current issue is volume 10, number 1. Why use the word "alleged"? The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 7 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 So, the percentage of Home Theater sales hasn't been increasing while traditional sales haven't been so explosive? I note that you don't wonder how the HT side has done. You traditionally ignore what you want to ignore, so this is hardly surprising. Additionally, we haven't been in a recession for the past 3 years, which happens to exactly coincide with a decrease in Stereophile's figures? I wonder how other magazines would track during the same period. I also STILL wonder how much the HT magazine's sales "make up" for any downturn in Stereophile's figures. It's quite possible that total revenues have almost *doubled* through the division of two magazines, *if* the HT side hasn't cannibalized circulation (and if it's only taken 10 - 20,000 subscribers from the fold while adding far more, then there's no real cannibalization). And it's the return to the stockholders of the parent company that's the only important thing. Wanna try again? I guess in your world, 81,668 is 71,040. s****** |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid, despite the error. Scott Gardner |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid, despite the error. Scott Gardner |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:22:14 -0700, "Mark A"
wrote: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:34:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? Where's the beef? It seems to me that the facts are well known and say that the magazine's circulation has been shrinking significantly for a number of years. Can't we all just agree on a perfectly obvious fact? I think this is one of those issues that depends on presentation. If you plot circulation figures versus time, and start the vertical axis at zero, you get a graph that looks fairly stable, with some mild peaks and dips. Plot the same data with the vertical axis starting at 70,000, a la "USA Today", and it looks like Mr. Toad's wild ride. I see a circulatoin history with some pretty typical dips and peaks. The lowest number is only about 20% lower than the highest number, and the current circulation is only about 10% off of the peak circulation. Also, since you have an increase for the first three years, then a decrease for the next year, followed by an increase for the next two years, followed by a decrease for the next three, it seems pretty premature to predict any future numbers. While it's true that the numbers *have been* shrinking for the last three years, that doesn't offer any real predictive value. Considering the relatively small sizes of the variations, I don't think you can infer *anything* from those numbers. Scott Gardner Those are not circulation numbers. Those are subscription numbers that do not include in-store sales. Sorry, my mistake. I think the rest of my post is still valid, despite the error. Scott Gardner |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996 and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been posted? Scott Gardner |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996 and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been posted? Scott Gardner |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:28:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message "dave weil" wrote in message Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two segments to account for changing markets. Correction: The alleged split happened in 1995, given that the current issue is volume 9 number 1. The alleged split didn't keep Stereophile Magazine from increasing its circulation for the next 6 years. 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Wanna try again? Sounds like it was *you* who had to "try again". And I only see an increase for the next two years - from 1995 to 1996 and 1996 to 1997. Is there a second set of numbers that's been posted? Scott Gardner |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Mark A" wrote in message
... Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. This is correct. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from ads, this is also true. The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I quoted. If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information (printed in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw data. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data. It should be printed in the magazine once per year. That was the source of the data I quoted. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Mark A" wrote in message
... Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. This is correct. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from ads, this is also true. The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I quoted. If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information (printed in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw data. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data. It should be printed in the magazine once per year. That was the source of the data I quoted. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Mark A" wrote in message
... Most magazines subscriptions are sold for the printing and distribution cost. That is because they make their money on advertising. the higher the magazine sales, the higher the ad rates. This is correct. In the final analysis, the health of the high end audio industry will control the fate of the magazine, since they are the ones that purchase the ads. As the major proportion of any consumer magazine's revenue comes from ads, this is also true. The post office statistics are irrelevant. Magazine sales (subscriptions and store sales) are audited by an independent agency to protect advertisers. The audited statistics subtract out copies that are printed and not sold by stores (returns), or are extra copies printed for office use. These figures were not incvluded in the mailing stament figures I quoted. If you go the actual formas from which I extracted the information (printed in the December or Juanry issues of the magazine) you can see the raw data. Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? Our circ figures are audited by the ABC. I can get hold of them, just not immediately, which is why I quoted the publisher's statement data. It should be printed in the magazine once per year. That was the source of the data I quoted. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Arny Krueger a écrit :
I'm surprised that our resident worshippers of vinylism such as sockpuppet wheel have no comment on the horrendous amounts of audible distortion that this review shows. Given that he lists no other music player in his main system, one has to wonder exactly how profound the ear damage he must have, actually is. Scott "high-IQ" Wheeler has explicitly written that he likes distortion, in fact he is desperately looking for distortion. ;-) This explains why he likes venyls, I'm sure that now he is very interested in this turntable. In fact Scott Wheeler only likes distortion and very expensive equipment that he can show to his friends on "awesome days" (lol). Scott Wheeler is ignorant and incult but he loves to exhibit his money... :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Magazine Statitistics | Audio Opinions | |||
Saddam/Time Magazine | Pro Audio | |||
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer | Car Audio | |||
- TAS magazine Website Updated - | Audio Opinions | |||
FA: Matrix sound design magazine (this might interest some of you) | Pro Audio |