When a magazine's "whale advertisers" become their source of survival, "Marketing" becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore.
Forgive me? Jack --- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > http://www.uandimag.com > > > > No ads. One issue so far. Pretty good > > > > -Adam > > Who knows the editor/publisher. > > > The subject of ads in photo magazines comes up frequently, and often > > people commenting don't have a clue about the economics of magazine > publishing. > > If you look at a photo magazine like Popular Photography, and you > figure out how much it costs them to mail it to you compare to how > much the subscription costs, you'll quickly see that there really > isn't any profit there. Do the same with all the costs associated > with news stand distribution and you'll find very little in the way > of profit there. Magazines make their money from ad sales. Now if > you look at those magazines with very few or no ads you'll find one > thing in common, much higher cover price (and much higher > subscription price if they offer subscriptions). So it's a choice > between reasonably low cover and sub price and lots of ads, or high > cover and sub price and few ads. > > Magazines have two internal divisions, editorial and advertising, > often referred to in the business as church and state. The best > magazines maintain a strong separation between the two, and don't let > > the advertising department put pressure on the editorial people. > When I first entered the magazine business back in the 70s there was > > a "Berlin wall" between the two. Our publisher didn't even like to > see us talking to each other. That's the only way to maintain > freedom of speech for the editorial people. Obviously, chinks were > driven in that wall over the years and at many magazines big holes > were drilled. In some cases the wall was pulled down completely. > Readers are not stupid and when a glowing review of a product faces a > > full page ad for the same product, something is seriously wrong. > > Editorial and advertising have two different missions. Editorial's > job is to inform and entertain the reader. Advertising's job is to > sell readers to advertisers. There is always, and should always, be > > a separation of these two functions. I've watched over the years as > > the separation has eroded. Today all but a handful of magazines are > > owned by giant corporations run by bankers and MBAs, not by > traditional publishers, and we have seen the result. Bottom line > fever. > > I always wished I could find a wealthy benefactor so that I could > start and run a photography magazine that was not dependent on > advertising. The only magazine like that was the old Swiss magazine > > Camera, run by Alan Porter. It was published by a printing company > who used it as a showcase for their magnificent printing quality. > For those who know about such things, it was printed by sheet-fed > gravure. The quality was stunning. But, as with most such things, > it changed hands in the late 70s and the new people switched to > ordinary printing and the magazine just died. I think it was the > finest photography magazine ever. > > Sorry for this digression which may not interest some of you at all. > > Bob > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
