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
