Dragon & Dungeon Magazines - the numbers tell the story

[frankthedm]

The word from Paizo at the time (either Erik or Johnny Winters) was that neither Dungeon or Polyhedron was very profitable. Rather than canceling both magazines they decided to bundle them together and see if that would work.

If they had bundled Polyhedron with Dragon we probably would have seen the last of Dungeon.

I do not think that argument holds water considering Poly was eventually removed from Dungeon and Dungeon continued until WOTC took their licenses back.

Dungeon is a nitch market magazine. Ready made dungeons for the DM. The only way for it to sell more copies is to A: convince more DMs to buy it and B:convince more folks to DM. The numbers won't be glorious, there is no way for them to be without diluting the magazine's content.

 

[kenobi65]

Magazines are required to post numbers in their magazine (I believe it's tied to postal regulations, but I'm not sure). Every year these numbers appear in the magazines.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that it's done to comply with the audit bureaus that track circulation, for purposes of establishing a rate base for advertisers.

 

[Piratecat]

Anyone have the circulation numbers available from the mid-80s?

 

[Rauol_Duke]

The following figures are the average number of copies sold (Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation) for each year of Dungeon magazine, ending at the date given. Issue numbers from which this data came are written in parentheses.

Paid Distribution
Oct 2000 (#84) - 23,672
Oct 2001 (#90) - 24,663
Sep 2002 (#96) - 36,572
Dec 2003 (#107) - 48,238
Oct 2004 (#118) - 37,141
??? 2005 (#130) - 32,195
Oct 2006 (#142) - 31,408

What made 2003 such a good year? 3.5e? Shackled City? Something else?

Cheers!

The SCAP started in issue #97, so it was going on in 2003. There was also the Dungeon #100 mega-issue, which I believe was a pretty good seller. Then, as someone else mentioned, there was the 3.5 update as well...

Also, isn't this the time when Dungeon went from bi-monthly to monthly?

 

[Glyfair]

I do not think that argument holds water considering Poly was eventually removed from Dungeon and Dungeon continued until WOTC took their licenses back.

Except during that time there were a lot of changes to the magazine. After there were even more.

I suspect that Dungeon's salvation was partially these changes. Also, the severe cut in content per issue may have gotten some fans to pick it up more often after the changes. Remember they went to monthly when they added Polyhedron. Maybe, after Polyhedron dropped, people got used to seeing Dungeon on the stand more often, so were more aware of it and picked it up more often.

 

[Rauol_Duke]

I do not think that argument holds water considering Poly was eventually removed from Dungeon and Dungeon continued until WOTC took their licenses back.

But also consider that this was the time where the Adventure Paths started to appear in Dungeon as well, which has been cited as one of the most popular features of the publication.

 

[WayneLigon]

Anyone have the circulation numbers available from the mid-80s?

Dec 1965 info in Dragon 104
It's a little hard to make out on the scan, but it looks like:
Total Copies avg per month: 112,000 and change actual distribution
Sale through dealer: 75,911
Subscriptions: 36,000 and some change

 

[Erik Mona]

I have almost all of the numbers for all years of both magazines on my computer at the office and will post them tomorrow if this thread is still on the main page (and I remember). In summary, the numbers were pretty small but growing through the late 70s, hit a peak around 1984-86 with about 108,000 circulation, and then began dying off shortly thereafter. Prior to third edition, the numbers were very underwhelming, but they picked up with 3.0. They started sliding down (as did almost all D&D/d20 product) after 3.5 was released.

These numbers tell an interesting story, but as James said they are only part of the story and they don't accurately reflect profitability. About a year prior to Paizo forming, there was a plan on the table to cancel Dungeon outright, which caused a great deal of turmoil in the Periodicals department. Adding Polyhedron basically saved the magazine from cancellation, but it was a remarkably controversial move that didn't meet with unanimous approval from the readers. It DID, however, add about 3000 readers at a critical time, many of whom stuck around when we later canceled Polyhedron and gave Dungeon a complete editorial revamp.

--Erik

 

[GVDammerung]

On continued reflection, these numbers present me with some puzzlements when I note statements by Paizo folks, post-2003, that they were doing "great" and that circulation was trending "up." Really? Where is that in these numbers? For either Dungeon or Dragon? I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone at Paizo but I'm not understanding something.

Dungeon has also been called the "common experience" in terms of adventures for 3x. Maybe that is so, even with these numbers, but that "common" is less common that might have been imagined it seems.

Also called into fair question, I think, is the idea that Paizo has its "finger on the pulse" of what gamers want, perhaps moreso than Wotc. I'm not saying Paizo ever claimed such but I have seen and heard the argument. Was Paizo a failing business, to judge by the rate of decline in these numbers, rescued from failure in a few years by Wotc's decision to take back the magazines now and put them online?

Just to clarity - I'm not meaning to slam Paizo or call anyone there's integrity into question. I just have trouble squaring some things.

Moving on, can Wotc expect Dragon and Dungeon content, imagining it will remain similar to the print products, to really be an attraction for D&D Insider? And if they say it will can that statement be given anymore credence than Paizo's statements that they were doing "great" and trending "up" with the magazines, even while the numbers Merric has posted show a declining trend?

I've got questions and no answers.

 

[Glyfair]

Also called into fair question, I think, is the idea that Paizo has its "finger on the pulse" of what gamers want, perhaps moreso than Wotc. I'm not saying Paizo ever claimed such but I have seen and heard the argument

To be fair, many of those comments really come from people who like what Paizo has and assume that's what everyone wants. There is a definite tendency among some some gamers to assume what they want is what the game market wants. Sometimes they are right, sometimes there aren't.

Still, the Paizo crew have made no secret of what they like. It makes perfect sense that those of similar preferences would rally under their banner (Greyhawk fans, for example).

They also aren't one trick ponies. Their non-adventure products have a non-d20 market. I know one "indy gamer" who loves the item cards.