_______________________________
Did you ever see this blog post by Valin from last year? I believe it was in response to the stagnant circ. numbers. By the way, they
do not get audited, as is custom by virtually all major publications, including Stereophile.
I will let other interpret:
_______________________________
Yes, TAS does have lower paid circulation than "Stereophile." It has always had lower circulation than "Stereophile" (at least since the dawn of the Archibald/Atkinson era), although that circulation varies from three-month to three-month period and, on average, tends to settle around 30-31,000 per year (thus "Stereophile" tends to have about two-and-a-half times our circ).
HOWEVER, have you taken a look inside the two magazines?
Let's start with the quality of the paper. On the basis of print quality, which magazine looks better—and which is definitely easier to read? (And please don't come back with the official "Stereophile" line, as you have with paid circulation, about larger-circ magazines being habitually printed on cheap smeary paper. Ever take a look at "Vogue" or "Wine Spectator," for two of countless examples of industry-related 'zines?)
Second, have you counted pages in the magazines? Which has more reviews-per-issue?
Third, have you counted advertising pages in the magazines? Which has more advertising pages? (And please don't come back with the official "Stereophile" line, as you have with paid circulation, about TAS "underselling" it on ad rates—or "giving away" ads. The truth is just the opposite. 'Phile has lowered its ad rate to compete with us—thus far unsuccessfully.)
If you grant what is obviously true—that we print our magazine on much better quality paper stock, have more reviews of more products in each issue, and sell a considerably greater amount of advertising than "Stereophile" does—you have to ask yourself, "Why would a magazine with admittedly lower circulation be more successful than a magazine with admittedly higher circulation?"
The answer (and you may or may not like this but it is the case) is that the smaller, more self-selected group of folks who subscribe to and read TAS (and this group is considerably larger than paid circ would indicate, due to the Internet and to word-of-mouth) is perceived by the industry to BUY the equipment reviewed and advertised in our pages more often than the people who read 'Phile do.
How the heck else do you imagine that we can afford paper that is so much more expensive than 'Phile's, consistently pay for writing, printing, and mailing larger issues, and attract more advertisers? We are definitely NOT a charity. And what I told you about our bottom line (last year, this year, and really for quite some time now) is the emmis.
This brings up the interesting question of why TAS brings up the interesting question of why TAS readers (and folks influenced by TAS readers) would tend to buy the stuff we've recommended more often than 'Phile readers (if, as is widely perceived in the industry, they do).
This is a complex question to answer, but I think it must come down to trust. Readers (with two obvious exceptions) simply trust our opinions more. In part this is a historical phenomenon. HP, JWC, and PHD WERE the high end for a long time—and their word (particularly Harry's) was gospel. In part this is because the guys who've been mentored by HP (such as me, for one example) have tried to carry on his work with a level of intellectual seriousness that, IMO, is in keeping with his legacy (though I certainly am not the same kind of listener or critic as Harry, than whom none was/is better at this stuff). In part it is because we are, IMO, less techno-centric than 'Phile and, IMO, more accessible to average (i.e., non-techie) audiophile readers and often more enjoyable to read. Numbers guys tend to like 'Phile. We are the more word-centric and, IMO, often (not always—it depends on the reviewer and the review) the more literate read (both equipment reviews and music reviews). Finally, I think that we've shown more adventurousness when it comes to new gear than 'Phile has. Magico, the hot-button topic on this blog, is a great example. But there are many many more of these (Soulution, BAlabo, Constellation, MBL, Spectral, etc.), world-wide. This, in fact, is why we went to the Munich show. Not just to fly the TAS flag, but to discover new and worthy products. The audiophile market is not just an American or British phenomenon; it is global. And our "reach" appears to extend to emerging markets in the Far East and Eastern Europe in a way that ‘Phile's does not.
While it is true that several of our writers (me included, of course) have some years on them, so do 'Phile's (in case you didn't know Michael Fremer—the reviewer I most enjoy reading on 'Phile's staff—and I are almost exactly the same age). Plus I don't think any of us, TAS or 'Phile, "writes old." The fundamental childlike nature of this hobby tends to keep you a good deal younger than your years. (Witness some of the posts on this blog.) In addition, our openness to the "new" is a demonstrated fact. No, in my case, this has not always worked out the way I'd hoped and been assured it would (e.g., Symposium Acoustics Panoramas and Technical Brain electronics), but the way I see it it is better to be wrong in the market and right about the sonics than to simply ignore the prospect of great-sounding gear. You and oxy have been having fun with me and Magico—here and on Robert's superb blog. But the truth is none of you (and none of our world-wide readers) would have even heard of Magico for years and years, had they depended on "Stereophile." Consider Soulution, which 'Phile just reviewed for the first time about a month or so ago! Or Spectral, which, as far as I know, 'Phile has never reviewed (unless Robert himself reviewed it there). I could give you many, many, many more examples from my own reviews alone. Compared to 'Phile, we have been ahead of the curve when it comes to great sound—and intend to remain so.
Finally, when it comes down to it, Robert, Neil, I, and the rest of the TAS staff are driven to seek the closest approximation of the absolute sound no matter how "big" or "small," old or young, the company that makes the gear is. This, in spite of variations on the theme, is what hasn't changed e gear is. This, in spite of variations on the theme, is what hasn't changed at TAS—and never will. (Who'd ever heard of Magnepan or ARC or conrad-johnson before HP put them on the map?) We have a target. It's a moving target, I'll grant you, and its appeal to different kinds of listeners is different (as I've gone to considerable lengths to point out and allow for). But it is an organizing principle that gives us a guiding philosophy that readers can use in their own listening rooms. "Stereophile," IMO, despite the bells and whistles, has no such guiding philosophy (at least since the great J. Gordon Holt ran the show).
?
