Re: [RML] Aquarium publications in Australia

Aquamail (aquamail at ozemail.com.au)
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:10:04 +1000

The reason I was given by the editor last week was lack of sales through
newsagents. Apparently direct subsciptions were slowly increasing, but not
enough to cover losses elsewhere. On the other hand, I know quite a few
aquarists who let their subscription lapse, and/or stopped buying it through
the newsagent, because the issues were often late & unreliable- you were
never sure when they would be available.
Perhaps one of the PW&G editor's problems was the same as that of our
hardworking ANGFA bulletin editors, lack of support from those same
aquarists in the way of articles etc???
>From an advertisers point of view, I can also tell you that one of the best
ways to support the magazine is to let the advertisers know that you saw
their ad, and even better if it influenced you to purchase a product from
that company. In these days of electronic communication, this even applies
to larger manufacturers and importers. A quick email letting the company
know that their advertsing dollars are paying can do wonders:-)

Jennifer.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Gadd <cgadd at cfxc.com>
To: <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [RML] Aquarium publications in Australia

> Tyrone Genade wrote:
> > Loads of advertising?
>
> Bingo! That's what pays the bills.
>
> I guess the real question is: Why couldn't the magazines that went
> out of business get enough advertising. My wife worked for a
> major US magazine publisher, in the Ad Sales department. As important
> as the content is, the ads are what makes the bucks. I was suprised at
> first to learn that the Ad Sales manager made a higher salary than even
> the top editors.
>
> There was a 1 to 1 ratio of ads to content. If an advertiser backed
> out at the last minute, they would have to cut a page of content. Around
> December/January, ad sales were VERY hard to get. So those months, the
> magazine was VERY thin.
>
> If the magazines attempted to give the readers a higher ratio of
> content to advertising, then they would need to make up the money
> somewhere. The only magazines that I've seen survive with very
> little advertising are professional journals, where the subscription
> cost was VERY high ($20-30 per issue). Anyone who thinks that
> the cost of subscriptions or the cover price pays the expenses of
> producing a magazine are very wrong.
>
> --
> Chuck Gadd