 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.203.74.142
a hifi review mag which operated similarly to Consumer Reports but had editors and reviewers who actually knew something about fidelity, gear and music. I'd much prefer reviews from a truly non-biased and disinterested source, unaffected by any dependency whatsoever on manufacturers/dealers/advertisers.Hmm. If you added up all the subscribers and paying readers of all the hifi mags you're still talking about a number which is utterly dwarfed by the subscribership of Consumer Reports. I think S'phile has something like 70,000 subscribers.
Suppose we all paid S'phile (or any other hifi mag/e-zine) $25 a year. Is $1,750,000 a year enough to run a hifi mag that: buys all the equipment it reviews at the best retail prices it can find; has a central facility with a number of different sized listening rooms appropriate for a variety of hifi setups; has good production values in terms of paper/photos/graphic design/printing -- or on the net for that matter??? No more "accomodation" discounts for reviewers? Well, how much salary would it take to get knowledgeable audio enthusiasts who write well to live near the mag's listening/reviewing/testing facilty? Full-time jobs?
How much $$ would you be willing to pay for a subscription? How many audiophiles would actually subscribe, and how much $$ would it take to get the mag off the ground?
So far, it would seem that nobody with real inside knowledge thinks its viable. You don't see JA, Gregory, HP, Schneider, Rochlin, Srajan or anybody else with knowledge/experience in the biz quitting their gigs at mags/e-zines that run on advertising $$ to startup a new CR type audio mag do you? Maybe they know something we don't.
Much as I'd prefer a situation more likely to result in unfettered reviews than the mutually dependent relationship between mags and manufacturers/advertisers that exists now, I don't think the current hifi mag model is gonna change much.
Follow Ups:
As always, I speak here only for myself.I am under the impression that Stereophile makes money for its owners. OK, that is one data point.
I have also heard hearsay scuttlebutt that inception to date as of year before last, Absolute Multi Media's "Burn Rate" was, all-in (that is important, it lumps initial asset cost into the burn rate) was about $1 million a year. Now, that includes everything. But, if you were to exclude the websites and TPV, my guess is that the burn rate for TAS alone could be $500,000 a year. My guess is that even with clairvoyant management and immense financial discipline, making money by selling TAS is a very long shot--arguably it has never happened. Hearsay had it that a few years ago HP wanted out and was looking for backing for a new magazine--no takers.
I myself, in my interregnum between TAS and Stereophile, did some dinner-napkin computations for an audio equipment and music newsletter, print subscrition only, no advertising, and I could not make a business case for it. Why? The cost to acquire the customer was so large you could never work it off by subscriptions alone. Also, between scanners and email, one audiophile could subscribe, scan it, and send copies to a dozen non-paying friends.
I heard that by the time Fi folded, it had cost its owners $625 per subscriber. You can never dig out of that hole, especially when people __expect__ rock-bottom renewal offers.
Let's contrast TAS with a couple of other niche magazines. "Latin Mass" is not for overweight Hispanics, it is for devotees of the Roman Mass in Latin. Its paid rate base is more than twice as large as TAS'. "Biblical Archeology Review"'s circulation dwarfs that of Stereophile. BTW, there isn't much rancor in Latin Mass' letters page, but, there's plenty in BAR, but, mirabile dictu, nobody chalks it up to Demon Advertising... .
Bob Seeger sang, "I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then." Ford's hubris in outbidding GM for Jaguar has cost them inception to date $10 BILLION.
I personally would not think that the game has been worth the candle for the resuscitation of TAS, but, first of all, I am not privy to their balance sheet, just scuttlebutt, and, it has not been my money.
I have no doubts about Rick W.'s sincerity, but I doubt that he is a typical reader of audio magazines. I have come, regretfully, to the conclusion that a large portion of the audio-mag readership (exactly how large I cannot say) is more interested in the "transactional experience" than in actually getting better sound at home and entering more deeply into the music.
By "transactional experience" I mean the stirring in the loins than happens when certain guys finally connect up with a desperate dealer on the cusp of bankruptcy who lets a $20,000 piece go for $1500 over dealer cost. Ah, the warm glow--that's what it's all about to some people. And it it's all about getting a deal rather than anything else, all you need is pretty pictures, oohing and aahing, until the next flavor of the month comes along.
I do not say that such people are the majority, and, I treasure the readers I have who care deeply about music and express appreciation for my efforts to let them know about cost-effective equipment solutions. But those are precisely the people who can't afford (or don't wisht to pay) the outlay for an advertising-free magazine.
Catch-22.
Cordially,
JM
That it won't change doesn't make it a good situation. That all those guys you mention don't run out and do it simply means they are interested in making a profit. If that is YOUR main interest in audio--ensuring that mag pubs make money--more power to you.
No shit it ain't a good situation. I described what I think would be a *good* situation, and also why its unlikely to come to fruition.Whuddya think the guys I mentioned should be doing, putting up their life's savings and going heavily into debt rather than attempting to make enough money to live comfortably? Do you work for $$ or donate your work time/effort?
If you know somebody who'd be willing to put up the money for the kind of audio mag I described to function as a non-profit organization I'm all ears.
Assuming you actually read my post, I'm at a loss as to why you'd have a thought that my main interest in audio might be "ensuring that mag pubs make money".
Sorry, I didnt express it too well, nor maybe read your post with enough sympathetic understanding (not meant to be sarcastic here). It's a bad situation--audio reviewing; nobody does your CR model because they'd go broke; so, we live with what we have ("it ain't a good situation). I got all of that. What many posts here (and I NOT YOURS, so I appologize) seem to be doing is presenting a defense of the current situation as being a good thing. The reviewers need the equipment, JA needs to make money for his mag, HP needs to sell his mag to get out of debt, whatever with the on liners....all this justification and no one (but your post seems to contain it--certainly your reply to mine, so that's good)...says it's crap. It's a bad deal for audiophiles who are not rich. Everyone says, hey, what are you bitching about? To the point of this forum seems like Critics of Critics Corner. Thanks for your clarification and dialogue! Sorry I got it wrong.
Perhaps instead of setting up all that infrastructure , the reviewers could visit the listening rooms of the retailers and make assessments.Measurements will not be possible but we dont get to do any measurements when we go around auditioning.This will give real world results I think.This way the major expenses can be avoided and the subscription will be hopefully a reasonable amount.I wonder if this is a dumb suggestion! I recall paying $36 for a year of The Audio Critic in its first year of existence in the mid 70s when it had no ads.(Do I have to duck now!)There were very good reviews of Beveridge,Rogers,Quad,ML,Advent,DCM,Vandersteen,Electrocompaniet,Audio Research ,Bryston et al.Perhaps it will cost 5 times that much now for a similar no ads publication! Regards.
Hi Bill!I have to respectfully disagree with you - there are too many unknown factors when the reviewer is listening to a full system in a room which they don't know all that well.
I actually think that the current approach is not bad (each reviewer has a room which they know well, and a hopefully large selection of varied equipment to combine each tested component with).
I would have to say that two things must be given attention to:
1. It is best if reviewers have a wide variety of high-quality equipment.
2. It is best if equipment is routinely checked to make sure that it is still up to spec. This is maybe somewhat similar to the system that many equipment manufacturers use - they routinely send their test equipment for examination and recalibration, to make sure that it provides valid information.In some magazines worldwide, they choose to put all of the reviewers' reference equipment in a single facility, in order to make sure that the variety of gear available is very high. I don't know whether this is practical in a country like USA, though, where some reviewers of a single publication live far away from each other.
Best,
Yoav Geva (Gonczarowski)
YG Acoustics
> Perhaps instead of setting up all that infrastructure , the reviewers could visit the listening rooms of the retailers and make assessments.>The 'assessment' you'd get would be, "Hey, that doesn't sound bad."
You obviously don't understand how much time and work are involved in a single component review. It takes hours and hours of listening to different music, substituting components, over a period of weeks, sometime months to do a thorough job.
> I recall paying $36 for a year of The Audio Critic in its first year of existence in the mid 70s when it had no ads.(Do I have to duck now!)There were very good reviews Beveridge,Rogers,Quad,ML,Advent,DCM,Vandersteen,Electrocompaniet,Audio Research ,Bryston et al.>
The early TAC was superior and a much better publication than it became in 1987 when Aczel's speaker company went bankrupt, he began publishing again, lost his hearing and became a grumpy old man with a vendetta.
> Perhaps it will cost 5 times that much now for a similar no ads publication!>
That's about right. Here's the link to a similar publication.
Will people like you support it or will it fail?
What you would get would be a review of the system and the room with little or no ability to discern the performance of an individual component.Kal
x
Motorcycle Consumer News, in-depth product tests and evaluations, riding skills, how-to/DIY maintenance and modifications etc.No advertising, black and white, non-glossy paper.
The most informative monthly on the subject I've found.
$22 12 issues.
Cheers
...a much better perspective than the "simple plan" post below.You are correct. This would yield the best quality of reviews. But quality costs money...and there's the rub.
Without getting mired in too much detail, here is my guesstimate of what it would take;
- a considerable facility and equipment, much like you've described. Easily in the tens of millions.
- a staff of writers, listeners, engineers, technicians, statisticians, photogs, admin, et al. I could easily see a minimal team of 15-20 full-time and as many part-time FTEs. That's somewhere in the $3-5M per year range with benefits, etc.
- a budget to buy DUT samples and references; high 6 to low 7 figures (depending heavily on number of reviews a year).
- other maintainence, overhead, etc; easily crossing the 7 figure mark.TOTAL annual cost+profit; somewhere in the high 7 to low 8 figure neighbourhood [say a 5-20 mil range].
CONSUMER COST; lets say this new no-holds-barred product had a readership anywhere from 50k to 200k. This implies an annual cost/reader of $25 to $400 [how that is applied is immaterial for now].
MY OFFER; I'll quit my dayjob tomorrow and go to work for anyone who is willing to float this venture. Any takers?
6 issues a year (I am assuming ala Consumer reports no ads) Would you pay $100/year for an audio mag? I don't think I would.
Does anyone know how this new 'hifi critic' publication will procur review samples? Will they follow the traditional approach of asking for loaners, or are they intending to buy their samples and thus eliminate any source of dependance on the supply side of the industry.
Welcome to financial newsletters.Even Bob Brinkers' Marketimer is $199/yr, and this is an 8-pg, non-graphic, no ad newsletter.
Value (and Cost) are always in the eye of the payee...
...ratings on all of those investment funds is only $120 a year.
...maybe Paul Messenger, IIRC, have started a publication that accepts no advertising.It was mentioned in Stereophile.
It costs about $100 a year for a subscription.
I predict it will not be successful because there are few audiophiles who will put their money down - they just like to complain.
...not you have no excuse not to subscribe.
But at least it's "definitive." :-)
> Maybe they know something we don't.>I have heard that Tom Martin has not yet made a profit on The Absolute Sound which he bought in about 2000 and expanded to make it newsstand-friendly.
The average for a new magazine in the US is 5 years before it becomes profitable.
Maxim magazine was the fastest new magazine to profitability in recent publishing - I believe it was a couple of years or less.
Perhaps a Maxim/Consumer Reports audio review publication is the answer.
Instead of buying equipment at accomodation pricies, the writers could date the models...
You mean like spend a weekend with Carmen Electra and a Krell amp?
Let' see, Fi, Listener, Ultimate Audio and ???? all thought they had a better way. All failed miserably. I would recommend putting all your money on a roll of the dice would provide you a better opportunity of success.
Listener did not fail "miserably." The magazine was consistently profitable and subscription numbers were growing at a rate that would have passed TAS within a couple of years. However the company that owned Listener decided that they could make even more money elsewhere so they killed the magazine.
nt
........I suspect Stereophile grosses many times that amount as it is.When you start up a new venture the if is always the making or breaking of the enterprise.
One way to find out eh?
Smile
Sox
The only thing that would keep things afloat is what you can make after everyone and everything has been paid out of the "gross." As a practical matter, it simply isn't practical. As the saying goes, you can make a small fortune in this business, as long as you start with a large one :-)
........ ..Especially given the gross figure is based on a subscription number of a long established audio mag.My point is $1.75m is not a lot of capital to start a brand new magazine. Maybe you think it is a sufficient sum to support the supposition put by the original poster?
It will be a rare scenario indeed in a brand new venture where revenue exceeds expenditure in its first year ( or maybe the first five).
If you believe expenditure has to be lower than revenue to keep a business afloat, or even successful, you must have no experience in starting and owning a business?
I can think of no example, in Australia at least, where a brand new magazine owned and operated by a new player in the magazine market has ever even projected a profit in its first year of operation .. though several have become successful after several years of initial losses. ( none in audio however)
Smile
Sox
Sorry, I thought that was implicit; it's simply not enough. But beyond that, I don't think the premise is supportable no matter how much money is available, although the more money poured into it, obviously the longer it would last. And a website would last even longer, if that matters. All this is IMHO, of course (although I did help run a successful business for a long time).
Gday,It seems we may have a similar view on what Rick is proposing (it is impractical and doomed to failure) but just looking at it from different angles.
Sorry, I did misunderstand your initial post.
Smile
Sox
I'm not "suggesting" anyone attempt it. It is in fact a mag I'd love to read, and I might be willing to pay $100 a year for what I described. But don't forget the end of my post. I too think it would take bigger bucks than my example, and would be very risky. Hence my conclusion.....the current model ain't gonna change. I do hope Colloms's venture somehow succeeds and lights the way for change, though their approach ain't the Full Monty I outlined.
... and just looking for the right recipients :-)
the printing business was like that too.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
