alphajerk Posted February 19, 2001 Author Share Posted February 19, 2001 wow, i cant wait for the ad-less issue, ill be at the newstand immediately. i wish there was an easier way with our "global economy" to subscribe... alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted February 19, 2001 Share Posted February 19, 2001 AN IDEA! BOLT OF LIGHTNING!... What about a music mag where music trade advertisers are advised to place ads "at their own risk"...and the bulk of ads come from Toyota, Oxidol, Absolut Vodka, y'know, the ads you see in any other magazine. Absolut's not going to pull their ad because some piece of music gear got a bum review. And musicians drink Absolut, drive Toyotas, etc. Smell what I'm cookin'? You remove the danger and high subscription price of an adless magazine, and serve the customer in a completely unbiased way... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvster Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Great idea, Tedster. Unfortunately, the circulation of most MI mags is so tiny compared to books that liquor or car companies advertise in, we're well below their radar. Believe it or not, MI publishers have always tried to get non-endemic advertising, but it's a major feat for ad reps to get so much as their big toe (no pun intended) in the door at agencies. Mainstream consumer advertising -- where pages might go for $25k or higher -- is a much different proposition than MI, where many times the rep is dealing with a company president who has a guitar in the closet, has read the mag for years, and understands the benefits of reaching its audience. Big-money advertising is about getting the media buyer's attention. And media buyers are numbers guys, not music guys. I'll be fascinated, though, to see how the SOS experiment works. It's a bold move that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. My favorite kind. ;-) And Ian, when I was at Keyboard we had pretty much the same experience with covers that SOS does: Gear usually does best, followed by concept covers, followed by artist covers (unless the artist has true celebrity status). Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 >>And Ian, when I was at Keyboard we had pretty much the same experience with covers that SOS does: Gear usually does best, followed by concept covers, followed by artist covers (unless the artist has true celebrity status).<< True story: when I started EM, we had artists on the cover initially because Mix publications insisted we do so. I wanted gear on the cover for two reasons: because I felt our readers were the stars, not some rock dude, and because Keyboard (at that time) had artists on the cover. I felt there was no way to compete with Keyboard's staff and funding (EM had an editorial staff of two!), so I figured that whatever Keyboard did, we WOULDN'T do so that we could carve out a different niche. Then the gear covers took off, and well, it's been that way for EM ever since. BTW Ian that was me who thought you made money from newsstands more than subs, I stand corrected. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 >>Great idea, Tedster. Unfortunately, the circulation of most MI mags is so tiny compared to books that liquor or car companies advertise in, we're well below their radar. I see...but weird, you'd think the folks at Absolut would love to perchance be able to spend less on ads. I understand that the agencies wouldn't think there's enough coming in to line their pockets with...wouldn't one be able to come up with some mainstream companies that otherwise couldn't afford to do huge ads in Time? Okay, I'll shut up now. "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvster Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 < Makes perfect sense, is absolutely logical, and for some reason it never works. ;-) MI is such an odd duck. So important and such a linchpin for much larger industries, yet tiny and misunderstood in ways you can't imagine. Anybody who's into big bucks and prestige looks at it as a $7 billion prison (the size of the entire US MI market), but most of us prefer to look at it as a nice, cozy, out-of-the-way $7 billion retreat. Just to give you an idea, take a look at these circ numbers: Guitar World - 190,059 (biggest in its category and in MI) Electronic Musician - 71,627 (biggest in its category) Keyboard - 70,877 (biggest in its category) Mix - 41,330 (biggest in its category) Now take a look at these: Rolling Stone - 1,254,148 (similar demographic to MI) Vibe - 760,152 (similar demographic to MI) Guns & Ammo - 591,355 (scary) Spin - 540,063 (similar demographic to MI) Vegetarian Times - 320,954 (pass the tofu) Texas Monthly - 300,991 (huh?) Cat Fancy - 261,738 (ah...ah...atchoo!) You get my point ... these aren't even the biggies. Time's circ, for instance, is 4,056,150. TV Guide's is 9,948,792 (if I'm not mistaken, the largest of any magazine in the world). Keep the good ideas coming, though. Something's gotta work sometime! Marv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 >>Mix - 41,330 (biggest in its category)<< FYI - The Publisher's statement in the December 2000 issue of EQ shows paid/requested circulation of 41,204, with total distribution (including free copies) of 44,295. But it's also on an upward curve, with the two figures jumping to 44,147 and 47,371 in the issue published nearest to filing date. Which of course makes me wonder, given the similar circulation figures, whether the same 41,000 or so people read both mags... As to the ad thing, let's cut to the chase: ad agencies get a 15% commission on the page rate. So of course, they advise their clients to buy really expensive pages. I worked in an ad agency in the 70s that handled various computer company accounts, and we were notorious for taking out ads in magazines that charged $600 for a full-page and had a circulation of 1,000 people, like the "Newsletter for New England Dentists" and that sort of thing. Those ads were PHENOMENALLY successful for the companies, they made back their investment a zillion times over. Okay, so we got a lousy $90 commission...but the companies became so successful they started buying four-color spreads in the big mags like Byte, and that's where we cleaned up. One more thing...I remember a magazine (that shall go nameless) that used to boast about their integrity, and how they would never accept ads from cigarette companies, liquor companies, etc. Turned out their integrity was involuntary - none of those companies would buy ads anyway . One of the biggest problems for magazines is the cost of finding and keeping subscribers. I'll predict we'll see more use of the net to troll for subscribers. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvster Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 <> EQ's qualified non-paid circ is 25,924, and Mix's is 25,984. I can tell you one thing: Pretty much the same group of people gets the mags for free. As for what's bigger, Mix's qualified circ is counted somewhat differently because it's audited by BPA's business arm, so when you really roll up all the numbers including single copy sales, its circ is 51,717. And if I'm not mistaken, publisher's statements provide monthly numbers (fuzzy ones at that), while BPA totals are calculated on a six-month average. Monthly totals can be skewed based on when circ promotions or bulk shipments happen. If you want to compare circ apples to circ apples, you have to use the audited statements. You're correct about the Net! With direct mail costs going up and response rates going down, it may be the Holy Grail of circ acquisition. I believe Men's Health has had tremendous success with online subs. But all this stuff is way off-topic, sorry I stepped on the real thread. Marv This message has been edited by Marvster on 02-21-2001 at 02:12 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 >>And if I'm not mistaken, publisher's statements provide monthly numbers (fuzzy ones at that), while BPA totals are calculated on a six-month average. << Publisher's statements provide the average over the year (not six months) prior to the filing date, along with the total for the month nearest to the filing date. Hey Marvin - since you seem to be up on this kind of info, I wonder how magazines like Urb and Revolution are doing. Any numbers? Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvster Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 I stand corrected! (Still think you have to use the audit statements to compare, though.) I can't find Urb in either the ABC or BPA audits, but their "sworn" circulation is 70,000 according to MusicMagazines.com. If you really want to know, I'd imagine someone at UEM has an SRDS subscription (don't know if Urb lists, though). As for Revolution, Future announced just a couple of days ago that they're shutting it down (see release below). Too bad, thought they showed some promise. It's bloody out there... Marv * * * * * Business 2.0 among latest to suffer tech turmoil SAN FRANCISCO -- British publisher the Future Network is exploring the sale of its once-booming technology magazine Business 2.0 and is laying off 350 workers in the face of an advertising downturn. In addition to trying to sell Business 2.0, The Future Network said it would close 20 unprofitable publications in its stable of 134 magazines. The doomed magazines include the music magazine Revolution and five other U.S. publications. The magazine closures, combined with the shutdown of several Web sites, will jettison 350 of the Future Network's 2,000 employees, a 17.5% reduction. Friday's shake-up is the latest ripple effect of a technology industry shakeout that has dried up the torrent of advertising that flowed to the media covering the rise of the Internet economy. The pressure appears to be intensifying. The Industry Standard, based in San Francisco, reportedly will make its second round of layoffs Tuesday when it is expected to eliminate roughly 65 of its remaining 430 workers. A Standard spokeswoman declined to comment on the magazine's plans. This message has been edited by Marvster on 02-21-2001 at 02:18 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.