The simple truth is that all publishing firms are constantly in a state of decay. It’s only innovation and product enhancement that keeps magazines afloat. That’s why the conventional wisdom is that all magazines have their look redesigned every few years. (The are exceptions…National Geographic, for example)
I am currently working for a small-to-medium boutique publisher in rural Ohio. For a myriad of reasons I moved my family out here to take the job. The setting is good for kid-rearing, cost-of-living is about 1/3 of the cost in Washington, quality-of-life (no more 1.5 hour commute) is better, etc.
But I’m not getting through to them.
All subscriber lists are decaying. If one has 100,000 subscribers some large number of them will not renew for another year and therefore one will have say, 70,000 subscribers the following year. Therefore, if one wishes to maintain ones subscription rolls at 100,000 one must acquire 30,000 new subscribers over the course of the year.
To acheive that goal one must spend money. Marketing costs money. There’s little we can do to get around that.
And here I am in rural Ohio working at a firm that doesn’t actually recognize that fact. The brother’s who own the firm are smart enough. They know their subject very well. What they apparently don’t know is publishing. They hired an accountant several years ago when they recognized a cash problem. Well and good.
But the thing they cut back most was marketing. For three long years they simply stopped any form of business development. The rationale was that the income didn’t support the expense of producing the magazine at those levels.
And the circulation dropped 45% since 2001. Forty-Five Percent.
This, of course, cuts our revenue quite a bit, both subscription and advertising (and ancillary because there’s a smaller market to see our other products).
Now, today, I get the same cant: We need to cut back on marketing. We can’t afford to keep the circulation where it is because revenues have declined. This, of course, comes from the accountant. It’s the same song she’s been singing for years.
But where does it end? I appear to be the only one who sees that cutting circulation (to save money) leads to lower revenues which leads to a need for further cutting. All the brothers think is that they don’t want the circulation to decline any further. Well and good. But when it comes to paying for it (which I believe we could do by rationalizing some things)(I’d fire an accountant out of spite, myself) they listen to our accountant and when she says we can’t I can’t say which way they’ll jump.
Dammit. Am I the only one to see the precipice?
Am I?