[dennis kirban]

I am sure many of you subscribe to various car magazines. I have for many years regardless of how much is on the internet I still like sitting down with a car magazine.

I think it is really getting tough for many magazines car ones in particular to stay "afloat" meaning profitable. Their renewal forms are such great deals its hard to believe they will make any money.

I just renewed for one for 3 years a a cost of a mere $6 per year. Their monthly magazine on the newstands sells for more than that. Another one I just renewed for one year and the savings was just over $40 and is like getting 8 months of the 12 months for free.

These "specials" may bring in quick money but these two examples point out that at some point the profit disappears.

If your my age you would have trouble counting all the various monthly magazines that have come and gone in the last 40 plus years. Not just car related.

Old timers may remember all the monthly GTO related newsletters that used to be published....Mine and the Classic GTO written by Phil Bauman were two of the oldest and longest running ones....

I now do a free email one every Wednesday to my Buick people....when its free its tough to complain! I am sure many other companies operate a similar program.

But again the written magazine is still enjoyed but the numbers are dwindling.....as is the profitablity.

Just my thoughts.....

denniskirban@yahoo.com

At least The Legend is still going strong all these years.

[salem1912]

I wonder what percentage of revenue comes from subscriptions vs. advertisers?

[GStage1]

Magazines and newspapers make all their money from ads....the subscription fee is just icing on the cake.

Only problem with printed matter....its out of date by the time you read it with the internet age.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by GStage1

Magazines and newspapers make all their money from ads....the subscription fee is just icing on the cake.

And to get the advertisers, they need the subscribers. That's why they are doing the deals.

[arbys]

Originally Posted by The Champ

And to get the advertisers, they need the subscribers. That's why they are doing the deals.

That's the way it is with our local rag (newspaper). They offer deals like the whole week instead of just weekends for a nickel more a week. That equals more bird cage liner.

[David Jones]

I've taken various magazines for decades and the subscription has always been substantially cheaper that the newsstand copy. Longer term subscriptions have always been cheaper still. I can't say that I've noticed a difference.

[Zimtok]

A couple subscriptions I have will do "Double Issues" where you get a slightly thicker magazine that covers two months. These are not time sensitive magazines so they are not out of date. But if they do it a couple times a year you get 8-10 issues instead of the 12 you think you paid for.

Of course you could always subscribe the the ONLINE version where it is usually cheaper still and you don't have to wait for the mail. But then you don't get to hold the paper in your hands.



.

[455Grandville]

I occasionally pic up a British Publication (Really good DIY articles) that showed you could buy a sub on the net and have it sent to your I-Phone for cheap. I read in a later issue the internet/phone sales were much less over the actual magazine -

Originally Posted by GStage1

Magazines and newspapers make all their money from ads....the subscription fee is just icing on the cake.

Only problem with printed matter....its out of date by the time you read it with the internet age.

Most of the diesel magazines seem to have much more advertising than articles.

[GStage1]

If anyone with brains is running a magazine....they should have free subscriptions...then you would have all the subscribers to show to prospective advertisers.

[critter]

So want to hear from a guy who works for a newspaper right now and has since he started in 1977?

Yes, market dynamics have changed dramatically. The internet and other streams have diluted the advertising dollar to the point that no entity, web or otherwise, can survive on it exclusively. I bet if you had access and could see the real numbers Google can't even pay its bills on what they take in for advertising. They'd never admit it but speculation on the pay off keeps them afloat.

So here's the question you ask yourself. You get your news from the internet? What qualifies that news? What filter was used to determine if that information was actually truth or just fiction provided to get your attention?

When I started it was a code. Journalist are bottom feeders but we all knew one thing. We had to have to the goods to back up the story. Then came television. They played fast and loose. My real eye opener was when I watched them crack open the check book to buy interviews after a national story broke in my home town. Truth wasn't important. It was sweeps week. After that it turned into who could buy a network to push their political view. Newspapers were just as bad when certain individuals started buying them up and crating "chain" newspapers.

I worked for a family owned newspaper when I started. I spent 18 years with them until I saw that the patriarch was ready to go. He sold to a chain but I left before he did and worked for the Associated Press for a few years. That bastion of journalism turned out to be a corporate monolith and not my kind of place. I now work for another family owned newspaper, a rare breed.

Our publisher has a different view. He only allowed people with subscriptions to view our news content on the web. Still does. We recently raised our subscription price dramatically because advertising revenue will not cover the cost of producing our product. He made sure the readers understood that this is a premium product, an undiluted news source. To keep it going we needed their help. And we got it. The results have been promising.

So my advice is this. If you have a home town newspaper that is locally owned, support it. If you don't, well, you get what you pay for.

Sorry for being preachy. Just my view from the inside out.

[400 4spd.]

Our paper was started in 1882 and was owned by a local family until bought by Cox several years ago. The online edition sucks.

[Icefan71]

Originally Posted by critter

So want to hear from a guy who works for a newspaper right now and has since he started in 1977?

Yes, market dynamics have changed dramatically. The internet and other streams have diluted the advertising dollar to the point that no entity, web or otherwise, can survive on it exclusively. I bet if you had access and could see the real numbers Google can't even pay its bills on what they take in for advertising. They'd never admit it but speculation on the pay off keeps them afloat.

So here's the question you ask yourself. You get your news from the internet? What qualifies that news? What filter was used to determine if that information was actually truth or just fiction provided to get your attention?

When I started it was a code. Journalist are bottom feeders but we all knew one thing. We had to have to the goods to back up the story. Then came television. They played fast and loose. My real eye opener was when I watched them crack open the check book to buy interviews after a national story broke in my home town. Truth wasn't important. It was sweeps week. After that it turned into who could buy a network to push their political view. Newspapers were just as bad when certain individuals started buying them up and crating "chain" newspapers.

I worked for a family owned newspaper when I started. I spent 18 years with them until I saw that the patriarch was ready to go. He sold to a chain but I left before he did and worked for the Associated Press for a few years. That bastion of journalism turned out to be a corporate monolith and not my kind of place. I now work for another family owned newspaper, a rare breed.

Our publisher has a different view. He only allowed people with subscriptions to view our news content on the web. Still does. We recently raised our subscription price dramatically because advertising revenue will not cover the cost of producing our product. He made sure the readers understood that this is a premium product, an undiluted news source. To keep it going we needed their help. And we got it. The results have been promising.

So my advice is this. If you have a home town newspaper that is locally owned, support it. If you don't, well, you get what you pay for.

Sorry for being preachy. Just my view from the inside out.

That explains alot. My local paper only lets you look at 5 articles on their website without a subscription. I thought they were just being jerks, but there could be more to it than I thought. I don't know who owns the paper. I'll have to check.

I don't subscribe to any magazines. I let my HPP subscription run out, but thats another story. I do sometimes buy Hemming Muscle Machines, Muscle Car Review, and The Family Handyman off the magazine rack.

[John V.]

I still like printed stuff. Very few neighbors take the Jax Times Union by me, but I still do. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that newspapers are struggling. I just saw a Sat. Chicago Sun Times. Nothing in it. I thought our paper was weak, but by comparison, the Sun Times should have saved the ink that day.

Mags in trouble isn't just car mags. One sister is now editor-in-chief of a couple niche mags for a good sized publisher. Has spent her career in the industry.

She works hard at putting out a quality product. From what I recently gathered from her, her newest assignment is the challenge to make the on-line product go. If they can't make that happen, they probably won't survive.

None of my kids subscribe to a newspaper. I don't think any subscribe to a printed mag.

My wife was just in a store that always had an ad w/coupon in the paper. She asked them why they stopped advertising, the clerk said it just wasn't worth it anymore.

I know I'm a dinosaur. I do a lot of stuff on the net but still cling to the printed media. Plenty of my peers and more and more of the younger generations have no interest in printed media, everything they need or want, they get from the internet.

I recently re-upped for 3 years for one of my subscriptions. Past experience has me worried that they will be gone before the subscription expires (remember Pontiac Enthusiast?). I hope not, but that is the reality.

critter, 7 day paper here is just under $300 for the year. Makes me laugh when I remember I collected a discounted $0.73/week to home deliver the Phila. Inquirer circa 1969 (discount was 2 cent cut off newsstand price of daily). I remember when they dropped the discount, price was $0.85/week (daily was a dime, Sunday a quarter and I had about 60% more Sunday only subscribers IIRC). Not everybody subscribed, but I bet I delivered to more than 75% of the homes in my section on Sunday.

My wife has questioned why we still subscribe. When I'm on the road, the paper often goes direct to the recycling bin.

Sorry to say, but if newspapers disappear, doesn't mean the end of the world. Who knew people would pay to have TV delivered by cable? Who knew people would pay to listen to the radio delivered by satellite? Who knew we could have phone service without wires?

Delivering news by printed media may just be an archaic delivery system, more efficient to deliver news electronically and more importantly, people seem to prefer it delivered that way.

Challenge for the providers is how to deliver the product in a manner that people will still pay for it.

Some people just don't seem all that interested in the news of the day or info of any sort. They are too "busy" with their own lives and wouldn't pay for the kind of material newspapers and magazines can provide at any price.

[arbys]

Our newspaper is part of a conglomerate of news media and there isn't a conservative contributor in the bunch. What did it in for me was the biased political views and inaccurate reporting. The last straw was when they were supporting and promoting a new sports complex in the bad part of town. Not many people would attend there and if they did the taxpayers would be on the hook for the construction and maintenance of the facility. I stopped 6-7 years ago and haven't regretted it a bit, even with all the "free" offers. I figured that if was supporting them that I was supporting their agenda.

[critter]

Originally Posted by John V.

<snip>
Delivering news by printed media may just be an archaic delivery system, more efficient to deliver news electronically and more importantly, people seem to prefer it delivered that way.

Challenge for the providers is how to deliver the product in a manner that people will still pay for it.

Some people just don't seem all that interested in the news of the day or info of any sort. They are too "busy" with their own lives and wouldn't pay for the kind of material newspapers and magazines can provide at any price.

Agreed. Delivery of content is migrating to an electronic environment and we actively pursue that with apps for all those type devices. Honestly, I read the newspaper more with our iPad app than I do the printed paper. Mostly because I get up so early that delivery hasn't made it to my house. Also because it looks so darned much better.

The fact that no one seems to care about the content concerns me MUCH more than the fact they don't want printed products. We can always adapt to delivery methods. But the fact they are willing to be unaware of factual reporting and simply accept whatever the latest demagogue is spooning up on the internet sends a cold chill down my spine.

[arbys]

Originally Posted by critter

The fact that no one seems to care about the content concerns me MUCH more than the fact they don't want printed products. We can always adapt to delivery methods. But the fact they are willing to be unaware of factual reporting and simply accept whatever the latest demagogue is spooning up on the internet sends a cold chill down my spine.

Look how long it took them to start reporting the problems with the ACA, Ben Ghazi, etc. etc.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by critter

The fact that no one seems to care about the content concerns me MUCH more than the fact they don't want printed products. We can always adapt to delivery methods. But the fact they are willing to be unaware of factual reporting and simply accept whatever the latest demagogue is spooning up on the internet sends a cold chill down my spine.

You and me both.

Worse is that they don't even pay attention to the spooning up. They just don't think it matters to them.

You can get to the truth on the internet if you care to. But you gotta care.

[PMD1969]

Originally Posted by arbys

Our newspaper is part of a conglomerate of news media and there isn't a conservative contributor in the bunch. What did it in for me was the biased political views and inaccurate reporting. The last straw was when they were supporting and promoting a new sports complex in the bad part of town. Not many people would attend there and if they did the taxpayers would be on the hook for the construction and maintenance of the facility. I stopped 6-7 years ago and haven't regretted it a bit, even with all the "free" offers. I figured that if was supporting them that I was supporting their agenda.

Had the exact same problem with Dallas Morning News and dropped the paper five years ago as I just couldn't pay for the doom and gloom Libatard crap. Three times a week since we canceled we still get the wrapped briefing paper stuffed with ads and coupons.

[ponchjoe]

And when they go under they send you a crappy replacement like Auto Enthusiast...