The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t. today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in
today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message
) that he had "noticed the drop
on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny
Krueger had stated (in message )
that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.

Sure I do, its right below.

Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

Atkinson, how is it damaging to say that you told someone the truth? How is
it damaging to suggest that the editor of a magazine is concerned about the
fact that his magazine's circulation is shrinking? It would appear to me
that it would be more damaging to your reputation if I said that you don't
care or are proud of it.

Here, then, are the paid circulation figures
for Stereophile during the past 10 years. These are the figures
submitted each year by the magazine's publisher with its second-class
mailing statement to the Post Office, and are the average of the 12
issues preceding the month of filing (which is generally November):

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?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

Arny Krueger had stated (in message
) that he thought "there is
plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at
a rate that should and probably does greatly concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any.

Sure I do, its right below.

Considering that the circulation is above 1994 levels, when the high end was
booming, the trend is not clear.
The past few years have seen a decline in consumer confidence, which may
have impacted circulation.

If the slight decline continues while the job market improves, then there
might be cause for concern.

The numbers are less significant than with other magazines, because in
contrast with other magazines, that are faced with the "winner take all"
advertising revenues scenario. Stereophile has no real competitor.

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?


you are wrong.


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?


Not when you are incapable of recognizing perfectly obvious facts.

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for
Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each
year by the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to
the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the
month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a
magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion
concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For
example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's
circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in
2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996
and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope
that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems
to rest.

That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to
population growth.

Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick
trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the
same time period. If we restrict population data to males
between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down
nearly 25% per capita.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular.
However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level
since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous
years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on
parsing of population data.

Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT
or S&V numbers during the same time period.

S888Wheel said:


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?


you are wrong.


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?


Not when you are incapable of recognizing perfectly obvious facts.

The way I'm looking at it, the circulation has held pretty steadily over the
last ten years. There was an obvious spike at 2000...could it be this was when
they lowered the subscription price from $35 per year to something like $11.99?
Or is this when a couple of competitor mags went out of business?

At any rate, statistical misinterpretation has always been a constant on RAO.

Boon

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for
Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each
year by the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to
the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the
month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a
magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion
concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For
example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's
circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in
2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996
and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope
that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems
to rest.

That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to
population growth.

Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick
trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the
same time period. If we restrict population data to males
between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down
nearly 25% per capita.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular.
However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level
since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous
years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on
parsing of population data.

Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT
or S&V numbers during the same time period.



you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003,
or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say
it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how
you want to spin the stats.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in
today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message
) that he had "noticed the drop
on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny
Krueger had stated (in message )
that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's circulation
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by
the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

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

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in
today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in message
) that he had "noticed the drop
on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny
Krueger had stated (in message )
that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's
circulation
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year by
the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to rest.

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.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:58:30 -0600, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for
Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each
year by the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to
the Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the
month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a
magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion
concerning any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For
example, if you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's
circulation with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in
2000, when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996
and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope
that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems
to rest.

That may be true but raw numbers can mask trends due to
population growth.

Raw circulation is down 10% from 2000 to 2003. However, a quick
trip to census.gov shows that's 15% per capita decrease over the
same time period. If we restrict population data to males
between the ages of 20 to 50 years then circulation is down
nearly 25% per capita.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about Stereophile in particular.
However, circulation has decreased to it's lowest absolute level
since 1995 and lowest per capital since 1994. Four continuous
years of decline in raw numbers and 5-6 years depending on
parsing of population data.

Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT
or S&V numbers during the same time period.

Or even to add in the figures for the Stereophile Guide to Home
Theater issues.

I'm guessing that they sell more than the 10,000 drop in subscriptions
since 2000. Substantially more.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:24:42 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

Maybe it's just the economy but it would be interesting to see HT
or S&V numbers during the same time period.



you could say it went down over 10% between 2000 and 2003,
or you could say it reamined stable between 1998 and 2001 or say
it remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2003. It depends on how
you want to spin the stats.

Or you could say that they split their subscription base into two
segments to account for changing markets.

It would be interesting to see the subscription figures for the HT
side of the business added to the Stereophile figures.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in
today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in
message
) that he had "noticed the drop
on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny
Krueger had stated (in message )
that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..." etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's
circulation
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for
Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year
by
the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the
Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a
magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if
you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation
with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000,
when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and 1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to
rest.

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

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:m5rJb.45884$m83.25535@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:wSqJb.45880$m83.5386@fed1read01...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the
context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can survive in
today's complicated media market. Rusty Boudreaux had said (in
message
) that he had "noticed the drop
on [Stereophile]'s gov't filing page for circulation," while Arny
Krueger had stated (in message )
that he thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's
magazine
sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly
concern [John] Atkinson."

However, it is fair to point out that Mr. Krueger offered _no_ such
"evidence," nor does he have any. Mr. Krueger also wrote that he'd
"heard that Atkinson admits it [ie, that "Stereophile's magazine
sales are shrinking"] privately." However, I don't know Mr. Krueger
personally, I have not had _any_ conversations with him, nor have I
discussed changes in Stereophile's circulation statistics with
anyone
who knows Mr. Krueger. His statement that he has "heard that..."
etc.
is thus at best a figment of Mr. Krueger's imagination and at worst
a deliberate dissemination of a falsehood to damage a magazine
edited
by someone Mr. Krueger regards as a personal enemy.

I did promise Mr. Goudreaux that I would supply Stereophile's
circulation
statistics. Here, then, are the paid circulation figures for
Stereophile
during the past 10 years. These are the figures submitted each year
by
the
magazine's publisher with its second-class mailing statement to the
Post
Office, and are the average of the 12 issues preceding the month of
filing (which is generally November):

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

Please note that there are many factors which contribute to a
magazine's
paid circulation, and that to draw any general conclusion concerning
any
specific factor will almost certainly be incorrect. For example, if
you
wish, as Mr. Boudreaux did, to correlate the magzine's circulation
with
the health of the high-end audio industry, our circulation in 2000,
when
the industry was having a hard time, was higher than in 1996 and
1997
when the audio industry was at its peak. Regardless, I hope that
this
puts the matter of Stereophile's purported circulation problems to
rest.

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.

I figured you knew this, and were ignoring it to make a point.
If you didn't know this, you have my apologies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Socky said:

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

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.

Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing.

At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Socky said:

If this guys post is true, Stereophile subsciption revenue has gone
from
almost $2.4M to less than $100K.

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.

Too many strings being plucked here. My head is ringing.

At least, though, you gave the Terrierborg's leash a good tug.


"At least".




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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. 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.

Sales are based on subscriptions and store sales (book stores, audio stores,
etc). 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.

Does anyone have a history the audited sales statistics for Stereophile? It
should be printed in the magazine once per year.

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.

Stephen

S888Wheel a écrit :

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?



you are wrong.


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation statistics.
....You see it works ! :-)

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. ;-)

In article ,
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. ;-)


Which is why catalogs are often free. Fashion magazines are interesting
because readers might be more interested in the ads than the editorial
content.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel a écrit :

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?



you are wrong.


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation statistics.
...You see it works ! :-)



If you can imagine that, I guess you could also
imagine that they are paying customers.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

S888Wheel a écrit :


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?



you are wrong.


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation statistics.
...You see it works ! :-)




If you can imagine that, I guess you could also
imagine that they are paying customers.


You have already demonstrated several time that Objectivism isn't your
prefered philosophy...
You will understand that I prefer to not discuss the subject with you. ;-)

Arny said


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?

I said


you are wrong.


Lionel said


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation statistics.
...You see it works ! :-)


It's still wrong and you are still stupid.

S888Wheel a écrit :

Arny said


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?


I said


you are wrong.



Lionel said


I propose you an exercise Scott "Hi-IQ" Wheeler. It is simple but
efficient...
Imagine the above numbers are Krueger's websites frequentation statistics.
...You see it works ! :-)



It's still wrong

I've always appreciated the force of your arguments.

and you are still stupid.

That's true Scotty, no hope for us. ;-)

I said


It's still wrong


Lionel said


I've always appreciated the force of your arguments.

Why present an argument to an idiot? Better just to cut to the chase.

I said


and you are still stupid.


Lionel said


That's true Scotty,

Hence no argument offered. Just the correct conclusion.

S888Wheel a écrit :


Why present an argument to an idiot? Better just to cut to the chase.


What a lack of respect for RAO community ! ;-)

What a lack of respect for RAO community ! ;-)



My lack of respect is for the few who have earned it.Congradulations on earning
something. Of course the smart ones didn't need an explination to begin with.
If you aren't smart enough to figure out why Arny is wrong why should I expect
you to understand the explination?

S888Wheel a écrit :

What a lack of respect for RAO community ! ;-)




My lack of respect is for the few who have earned it.Congradulations on earning
something. Of course the smart ones didn't need an explination to begin with.
If you aren't smart enough to figure out why Arny is wrong why should I expect
you to understand the explination?

I didn't request any "explination" from you.

I have only noted that some of RAO's contributors (mediocre ?) have felt
that this "magazine statistics" needs interpretation, debate or few
comments... :-)

I feel frustration that the RAO's genius, the prodigious, the superb,
the incredible Scott Wheeler deprive us from the definitive explanation. ;-)

"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

I feel frustration that the RAO's genius, the prodigious, the superb,
the incredible Scott Wheeler deprive us from the definitive explanation. ;-)


Deal with it.

S888Wheel a écrit :
I feel frustration that the RAO's genius, the prodigious, the superb,
the incredible Scott Wheeler deprive us from the definitive explanation. ;-)



Deal with it.

For me it's not really a problem, I'm already convinced... ;-)
....But more and more serious personnes think that you are just an
internet geek who is only interested in the "Arnold Krueger" troll.

If we watch to your statistics, "S888Wheel", it looks like that an
unknown evenement occurred in august 2003 has drastically modified your
Usenet posting habits. LOL.
You are a troll, Scott Wheeler, welcome to the club. :-)

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.

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

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


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?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

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.

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

"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?

"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?

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

The subject of Stereophile's circulation arose on r.a.o. and r.a.t.
today, the context being how a mainly 2-channel audio magazine can
survive in today's complicated media market.

BTW, one has to act whether this recisitation of the circulation controversy
is just another lame attempt to distract attention from Atkinson's highly
questionable and technically deficient Linn LP-12 review.

http://www.stereophile.com/analogsourcereviews/1103linn

"The measured playback frequency was 998.5Hz, but as I don't know the
accuracy of the tone recorded on the test LP (HFS 81, produced by the late
John Wright for the long-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi Sound), the 1.5Hz
difference can't be used to judge the LP12's speed accuracy."

Odd Atkinson can't find a test record with accurate tones.

An odd conjecture presented as fact:

"The tonearm resonance with the Arkiv lay at 10Hz; the "shoulders" at
exactly 10Hz on either side of the central peak are due to this resonance.
They lie at -41dB ref. 5cm/s, so it's hard to predict what their subjective
effect will be. Small spurs at ±20Hz, the second harmonic of the tonearm
resonance, can also be seen, but these are 60dB down in level. "

Basically, we're seeing what could easily be horrendous FM distortion being
attributed to a seemingly-benign source.

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.

"Look over there, cake!".

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******