Dragon & Dungeon Magazines - the numbers tell the story

[Plane Sailing]

Yeah, yeah, so English is not my first language and I mangled it somewhat, so sue me...

Anyhoo, English being a 'living' language, I feel that the word 'effectuate' could perfectly be added to the official dictionaries....

Doesn't need to be added - it's already there!

* S: (v) effect, effectuate, set up (produce) "The scientists set up a shock wave"

I love my language

 

[Plane Sailing]

"...We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D Nicoll"

 

[ephemeron]

You could have just said "effect", there.

Or even "cause." I find it pleasingly strange that when it's used as a verb, "effect" becomes synonymous with "cause".

 

[Erik Mona]

Dragon Magazine
Here is the same information for Dragon Magazine:

Oct 2000 (#278) - 38,214
Oct 2001 (#290) - 49,627
Oct 2002 (#302) - 51,831
Oct 2003 (#314) - 68,585
Oct 2004 (#327) - 62,725
??? 2005 (#339) - 54,637
??? 2006 (#351) - 46,250

As promised, here are some more numbers for Dragon. Please note that data for some years is missing. I haven't been able to find my Dungeon numbers yet, but I'll keep looking.

Issue Date Subs Total Paid
12 9/30/77 1164 7381
22 9/26/78 1144 7859
33 10/1/79 1951 10,885
44 10/31/80 4558 20,155
55 9/30/81 11,531 48,119
67 9/30/82 19,029 60,387

91 9/12/84 36,974 118,021
104 9/27/85 36,200 107,200
115 9/22/86 29,598 88,758
127 9/28/87 25,003 73,008

151 9/26/89 26,800 99,628
163 10/1/90 27,912 91,956

188 9/30/92 23,685 89,985
200 10/1/93 21,116 77,534
212 9/30/94 20,105 74,753

236 10/14/96 14,357 54,812
242 10/15/97 12,435 44,163

266 10/10/99 13,224 31,536

Keep in mind that TSR was notorious for lying about its distribution numbers (I have that from the horse's mouth of the guy responsible for getting that info to the Post Office), so I'd take all numbers from about 1986 to 1996 with a HUGE grain of salt. The "total distributed" for those years is very likely the total _printed_, and the subscriber numbers likely include 100-300 "comp" copies even though they aren't supposed to. Remember that ad rates were often based in part on these numbers, so there was a lot of pressure on an unethical company to inflate their numbers whatever way they could.

I'll dig around some more for the Dungeon numbers and see what we can see.

--Erik

 

[Bullgrit]

How much of the declining numbers can be blamed/credited on the Internet? I would think the rise of the Internet did more to lower Dragon's sales than any of the actual content. And looking at those numbers, the fall of the mag's sales seems to follow right along with the rise in the accessibility and ubiquitousness of the Internet.

Could a finger of blame for a drop off in readership be pointed at ENWorld? I know for myself, with no Internet, and no ENWorld specifically, I would have read Dragon more often.

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[Uzzy]

Advertising dollars are also being spent on the internet instead of on magazines, which really doesn't help a print magazine...

There is a problem with this. I don't see WoTC putting adverts up for third party products on their website, or the Digital Initiative, or new Dragon/Dungeon. So, technically, the print copies were getting more advertising dollars then the website ever will.

I think another important factor to look at is if there was a general decline in the purchase of DnD products from 2003 to present day. I don't see how we could get that data though.

 

[kenobi65]

Advertising dollars are also being spent on the internet instead of on magazines, which really doesn't help a print magazine...

There is a problem with this. I don't see WoTC putting adverts up for third party products on their website, or the Digital Initiative, or new Dragon/Dungeon. So, technically, the print copies were getting more advertising dollars then the website ever will.

I believe this was a general statement about why periodicals, in general, are suffering these days.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Dragon and Dungeon used to once a year (most years) post their circulation figures for the previous year in the magazine. A year or so back someone posted the circulation figures for Dragon going all the way back to the 70s. IIRC the magazine hit its peak in circulation c. 1982-85, dropped inexorably through the late 80s and 90s, and shot back up from 2000 on to about the same level as the early 90s.

At the time when I first starting reading in about 1990, the figures were about 180K - 200K or so, IIRC, which I probably don't.

 

[T. Foster]

At the time when I first starting reading in about 1990, the figures were about 180K - 200K or so, IIRC, which I probably don't.

From the figures Erik Mona just posted it looks like the reported numbers at that time were around 90-100K (and that number is likely significantly inflated over what the actual distribution was).

 

[Reynard]

I believe this was a general statement about why periodicals, in general, are suffering these days.

Actually, it isn't. there was a very interesting article in Wired a couple of months back that delved into. the gist is this: the potential is there, but it hasn't made it yet. My wife is an art director for a regional magazine and what is causing less revenue is mostly the increase in production costs. Paper is expensive. However, paper is also powerful and the going rate for magazine/newspaper ad dollars is 10x that of internet advertising. Hence why DI and Dungeon/Dragon still cost money -- even if they wanted to advertiose, and they might yet, it wouldn't cover their costs let alone turn a healthy profit.

The other issue is that while WotC says that the internet is where people go for that information, opinion polls and surveys don't bear it out. People tend to use the internet to enhance their non-internet related entertainment. They don't tend to read online much, and most people don't have the patience to watch "tv" online unless it is a 2 minute clip on youtube. So while the DI might be a good strategy, making the magazines online only -- as opposed to dead tree with a healthy web presence that might draw folks into the DI/Gleemax thing -- seems to be a poor decision centered mosytly around wanting to shore of the D&D brand (by choosing not to extend Paizo's license) and cut costs by districuting it digitally.

Just as a guess, I bet that the Dragon and Dungeon content gets the back burner after less than 6 months, and within a year it is completely subsumed into the DI, either magazine being little more than a logo ("Dragon" for players, "Dungeon" for DMs, I think).