Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On 11/27/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. snip Mark!! -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
Hmm..(?) Jack --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/27/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. snip Mark!! -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On 11/28/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm..(?) You'll find out soon enough. Mark has been compiling his favourite quotes from PDML, and each year he graces us with his pix of the year. Of course many of us are more than happy to tell him how to do his job. LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
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
RE: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
[...] 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). My main interest in photography is in photojournalism, documentary and reportage, which are not particularly well served by the magazine market, for reasons that are perhaps obvious. The few that are around (like 'ei8ht') fit this description exactly. 'Reportage' was the same, but even so couldn't keep going. I don't mind the high subscriptions to help magazines like this. Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
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
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. Forgive me? For what? Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Bob W wrote: My main interest in photography is in photojournalism, documentary and reportage, which are not particularly well served by the magazine market, for reasons that are perhaps obvious. The few that are around (like 'ei8ht') fit this description exactly. 'Reportage' was the same, but even so couldn't keep going. I don't mind the high subscriptions to help magazines like this. The problem with starting/running a magazine like that is finding enough people like you who are willing to pay the necessary high price. That's why most of them fail. It would really require a financial angel to do one right. I searched for such a person for a long time and never found him/her. Doing a magazine right, with good paper and high quality printing/binding costs a lot. But the single biggest item in a magazine budget is always postage. Postage to mail a magazine costs more than all other costs combined! And it is scheduled to go up again soon. Also, how many realize that the Post Office dictates editorial/ advertising percentage. You have to have the right percentages or you can't get reduced postal rates. I think the current ratio is 70/30 in favor of advertising. It's averaged over the year, and we always had to do a bunch of last minute juggling to get the yearly average to come out right. Bob
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
My flare for the obvious. Jack --- Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 27, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: When a magazine's whale advertisers become their source of survival, Marketing becomes their pimp and neutrality, their whore. Forgive me? For what? Bob __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: Magazines and ads, was Re: My first PESO
In a message dated 11/27/2005 7:23:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, how many realize that the Post Office dictates editorial/ advertising percentage. You have to have the right percentages or you can't get reduced postal rates. I think the current ratio is 70/30 in favor of advertising. It's averaged over the year, and we always had to do a bunch of last minute juggling to get the yearly average to come out right. Bob = Interesting! Didn't know that. I have done some nonprofit mailing, so I know you need a minimum (used to be 200) to make the cut on that. And, of course, there is media mail, a reduced rate for books, which has its own limitations. Truly did not know that the PO had various rates for magazines too, based on advertising content. Aha. That also explains those advertising circulars that come every Wednesday here. You know the kind that are printed on newsprint type paper, mainly from the local supermarket, but other local stores too. The ones I immediately throw in the round file. Been trying to figure out a way to stop them. They must get an extreme discount rate. Marnie aka Doe
