Free is not the right price for a magazine, says Walrus editor
Ken Alexander, the editor of The Walrus, has written an essay for the Globe and Mail website that argues that controlled circulation is the wrong way to go for magazines. Referring to the late Toro and Saturday Night magazines, he dismissed the trend to distributing such titles free through daily newspapers:
There is pseudo-science behind this free “controlled circulation” that attempts to quantify the number of “readers per copy” as a way of satisfying the requirements of advertisers. But the fact remains that readers rarely bought these magazines and, as such, developed little stake in them.He argues that only magazines that are paid truly engage with their readers.
In sharp contrast to controlled-circulation magazines, such titles build their audiences slowly (generally through word of mouth) and invite people to subscribe. They are committed to depth, long-form journalism, the best possible writing and art and promoting public discourse on matters of importance, and they treat the world as their classroom.The Walrus, according to its latest circulation audit, as of September 2006 has 31,982 subscribers and sells an average of 12,890 single copies per issue, for a qualified paid circulation of 45,607. Its website and media kit say the magazine guarantees a paid circulation of 60,000.Over time, the dynamic established is one of reader ownership of periodicals that satisfy a need for narrative, contextualized information, and a reading experience that engages and enhances civic participation. As the opera house or theatre lives or dies based on the quality of performance, or as the art gallery or museum attracts or dissuades based on the cleverness of collections and travelling shows, so too do content-based magazines soar or fail based on the sophistication of their prose.
posted by D. B. Scott at
10:41 am
14 Comments:
I really think free magazines do nothing for our industry. I don't understand why we would train consumers to expect our products for free.
Obviously free titles exist for advertisers, but in the end I think that we are communicating to consumers that the writing, art and overall production in magazines are not worth paying for.
Interesting. The content for controlled circulation is produced by professionals, who can be good or bad editors, art directors and editorial staff and contributors. The quality of the content can be excellent or awful or shades in between regardless of the distribution model.
Controlled circulation has the benefit of defining an audience to potential and existing advertisers, which, conceivably could help generate revenue for the magazine to publish.
Whether or not the magazine is successful depends on so many things but engaging the audience is necessary in either the controlled- or paid-circulation model.
Equity-based consumer reading choices won't be made on whether the magazine is free or purchased. It's the quality of the relationship that is made with the reader that will determine how much the reader is invested with the magazine.
Unfortunately, reader relationships are not what drives the ultimate success and life of a magazine though. As we have seen over the years, highly recognized magazines with dedicated readers have suspended publication for financial considerations that have nothing to do with quality or reader commitment.
Just a question about the Walrus' circ numbers: Is it common for there to be a gap between the circ guaranteed to advertisers and the actual audit numbers? Is this something the mag will have to address by lowering its rate base (if that's the proper term)?
Here's what I don't get: most U.S. newspapers have eliminated their own expensive-to-produce magazines, and replaced them with bland Parade Magazine. Why has no Canadian publication tried to provide controlled circulation magazines to the U.S. in addition to Canada? Our government subsidies provide a huge strategic advantage in terms of pricing, and the editorial content is already produced.
Toro, for example, would have gone over BIG in metrosexual U.S. cities. I always took samizdat copies home to Manhattan with me, and people went crazy for them. I guarantee you that readers in San Francisco, Boston, Houston, etc., would have been delighted to find Toro in their weekend papers.
With technology that easily allows regional printing and regional editions, why does no one do this? (Or is someone already doing it without my realizing it?)
Like the tasteful visionaries over at Driven magazine, Canada's great wannabe Man of Letters, Ken Alexander, has deemed it wise to put the boots to Toro in the name of self-promotion. Has the paid model really worked wonders for The Walrus? It's lost as many millions as Toro did, but somehow this resounding success is being shouted out from the rooftops because Alexander's foundation will continue to cover the bill.
As for that supposedly growing Walrus readership, the controlled model didn't work too badly for Toro on that front. Readership between year one and two grew by 48% - the biggest leap by far for any Canadian publication during that period. Toro's RPC would have been around three this year (about 650,000 readers). How does this stack up against The Walrus? Well, we don't know. After four years, Alexander has yet to submit his must-read publication to the scrutiny of the Print Measurement Bureau. Maybe the time has come to put some of that foundation money where your mouth is, Ken.
It also comes as no shock that the editor of The Walrus would turn up his nose at service journalism, popular culture, sports writing, and, especially, anything vaguely humourous. But for Alexander to take swipes at Toro's writing and writers is truly a joke. After all, the Walrus did tap more than a few "name" Toro contributors on the shoulder when it launched: Gare Joyce, Timothy Taylor, Charles Foran, Andrew Clark, Mark Kingwell, Curtis Gillespie, and others. The difference must have been the editing, I guess.
Alexander also seems confused about the meaning of "lad" magazines. GQ and Esquire - not part of the Maxim/FHM/Stuff lad movement - both feature those clothes and gadgets that a tweedy guy like Ken has no use for, but they also boast stables of writers that The Walrus can only dream of, as well as plenty of award-winning, long-form journalism (which, believe it or not, Ken, Toro had its fair share of). Why can't a magazine that dares to hit more than one somnolent note win over readers? Vanity Fair seems to be doing alright. I mean, would the editor of Harper's ever take the time to publicly criticize GQ - or even Maxim - for catering to its own readership? I don't think so. But sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.
Hello DB. It won’t surprise anyone to know much has happened at The Walrus since September ’06, including an increase in subscribers and newsstand sales.
Beginning in 2007, our figures show a paid circulation of over 60,000.
As Scott Bullock (circulation consultant and former Magazine Marketer of the Year) wrote in the Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Masthead (under the headline "A Textbook Case Of Nailing It"), an “aggressive and traditional circulation strategy” paid off for The Walrus. Mr. Bullock credits “circulation mastermind” Greg Keilty, whose first direct mail campaign for The Walrus resulted in an 11% response—a result most magazines would, says Mr. Bullock, “kill for.” Conversion rates are “fantastic,” he goes on, delivering a loyal, committed (not to mention educated, sophisticated, and affluent) audience to our advertisers. Not only that, our subscribers like The Walrus so much, they want to share—and do. More than 20% of our subscription base has given The Walrus as a gift—which is, to quote Mr. Bullock, “extremely impressive.”
If you need further clarification, we’re here to help.
Shelley Ambrose, Publisher
(The Walrus is published by a non-profit charitable foundation.)
Hi DB,
I don't understand why bloggers too often make things personal and venemous. The nasty tone of attack on Ken Alexander is unfortunate.
While Anonymous is right that Toro's readership grew by "48%", what he/she failed to mention was that this was an improvement from .9 readers per copy to 1.3.
Cottage Life magazine did not submit to PMB "scrutiny" until 2005. I'd say that was smart. They waited until their brand was firmly established, and all of their controlled circulation had been purged. Result? 17.1 readers per copy.
The average RPC for a PMB measured Paid circ magazine is 10.4 vs 3.7 for Controlled.
Those are simply facts. 1.3 readers per copy for Toro was probably a big part of the challeng, I suspect.
I liked reading Toro too. Great editor, great writers, great packaging. Anytime we lose a magazine that employs editors and writers and artists etc. it is distressing.
I'm not sure why they didn't compromise on the quality of the paper, binding, or even cut the frequency before shutting it down. But there is dignity in maintaining their standards of excellence.
When the Walrus does eventually submit to PMB scrutiny...and they will no doubt take a lesson from Cottage Life...I'll bet their Readers per copy will be extremely impressive too.
To be accurate, Scott, I think what you found 'nasty' were comments on my posting on the blog, not 'bloggers'.
While your views on controlled circulation are well known and congruent with Ken Alexander's, I'm not sure you'd agree with his dismissal of PMB's readership-measurement methodology as "pseudo science".
DB,
You're right...we circ geeks like data. And while PMB may not be a perfect science, it sure is an important piece of research. I suspect Ken's view will change when they eventually are measured by PMB. I'm willing to bet that they will get better than .9 or 1.3 readers per copy too. Hey, I'll go out on a limb and predict 10 readers per copy.
While Toro's decision to submit to PMB scrutiny practically out of the gate is certainly up for debate by industry experts and "circ geeks" alike, Scott's numbers, while accurate, don't tell the whole story.
Yes, Toro began its PMB life with .9 RPC, and, yes, its second measurement was 1.3. What Scott failed to mention is that the 1.3 number is a combination of results from the .9 year and the second year of measurement. And I hope Scott will correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that Toro's year two RPC - minus year one - was actually 1.7. In other words, it had almost doubled.
This year, the .9 figure would have been eliminated. So if Toro had similar growth in year three - and I hope Scott will allow this, as it's my prediction - it would result in 2.5 RPC. This, in turn, would translate into 550,000 readers. By chance, this is about the same number of readers Scott is predicting (from the end of his tree branch) for The Walrus at some undetermined point in the (distant?) future, should it decide to join PMB.
As for the tone of the discussion over Ken Alexander's essay, I didn't know Scott was so sensitive. In addition to referring to Toro as "schizophrenic," Alexander wrote doozies like this: "Toro settled, finally, for an appeal to lad culture and a vain hope that the odd celebrated writer would accord it enough respect to be mentioned at cocktail parties of polite and intelligent company." Obviously, Scott, your feelings about the magazine were vastly different, but Ken's naive dismissal of all magazines that aren't sufficiently Walrus-like is both condescending and ill-informed. Portions of his piece also have a "nasty tone of attack," to use your words. Wouldn't you agree?
I think the tone often turns nasty when The Walrus is involved for two reasons:
1. Many of us are envious of it's success (say what you want about Ken, but they have done a great job with the circ, despite publishing, what some call, boring editorial).
and
2. Ken Alexander comes off as a self-important git with an ego larger than the Chawker foundation at every given opportunity.
ovbutDear Anonymous,
You are right, of course, about the two year rolling average, and that the embarrassing .9 readers per copy would have disappeared. This year. Still, a 1.7 isn't something I'd still be very proud of. But if you think that shows strong momentum, ok. But if that's the case I can't help wondering why Toro didn't hang in their for one more year.
I'm not sure its safe to assume that in year three it would double to 2.5, but you're entitled to speculate, and to your opinion. But again, if that were likely, why not hang in there for one more year?
Sure, Ken bas a big personality and strong opinions, but he didn't attack anyone personally. But he sure took some shots. It's fair game I suppose, if you put your name out there.
As for me, well, my nickname is Mr. Sensitivo. But at least I'm not hiding in the weeds anonymously, so I guess attacking me is fair game too.
Again, I loved Toro. I think it is a loss for anyone who cares about the craft of publishing.
Still, PMB is a blunt instrument. Cottage Life was smart to wait 15 years before submitting to the scrutiny, and smart to morph themselves from 100% controlled to 100% paid.
Like Toro, Al Z. and the Cottage Life crew put out a great magazine, with great editors, great art directors, and great packaging, and started with controlled circulation...nothing wrong with any of that. 17.1 RPC is a staggering achievement.
As I said, Scott, Toro's decision to enter PMB as early as it did is certainly up for debate. It was gutsy on one hand and perhaps ill-considered on the other. I recall Toro publisher Dinah Quattrin being quoted in either Masthead or Marketing saying that she was under considerable pressure by advertisers to do so. Regardless, I don't think PMB figures had much impact on Toro's demise. The magazine's revenues were consistently growing despite PMB; its numbers were way, way beyond the Walrus's. So why call it quits now? A fair question - and one I hope that will be answered in more complete detail down the road. But, again, PMB really didn't seem to play much of a role.
And, come on, Scott, I hardly think you were attacked. Ken Alexander published his ridiculous assessment of the writing in Toro - the irony being that he did so in a piece that was quite poorly written - and I shot back. In turn, you, quite fairly, took me to task for posting anonymously. I'm pretty sure we'll all live.
Now let's get back to work.
Ok,
Back to work it is...Looking forward to the case study some day...I'd love to help write it if you want to talk sometime. e mail me at www.circ3.com anytime.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home