Dragon & Dungeon Magazines - the numbers tell the story

[Uzzy]

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

Yeah. My post was poorly worded. My point was that it's irrelevant to this specific discussion, as WoTC's new method of publishing Dragon and Dungeon is getting rid of all third party advertising. So even if Paizo only got one third party advert in Dragon magazine a month, they would still be making more money. Therefore, less money from advertising could not have been a major factor in the decision.

 

[Scribble]

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..

But I don't think the comparison is correct. D&D isn't the same as say, The New York Times.

Unless you're doing a term paper or soemthing, the NYT isn't designed to be used in any way other then reading it. Once you're done with it, you toss it aside, or leave it on the floor of the can for the next guy to read.

D&D isn't designed to just be read. It's designed to be used. Stuff from it is designed to be taken and moved into other formats, copied onto adventure papers, refferenced over and over for character info, for location info...

My Digital stuff is INFINITELY more usable to me then my books for these things.

As a player, I cut and paste the feats that I use, the spells that I use, the abilities that I use, so that I can print out a "book" custom tailored to my new character.

As a DM I carry the books I use in my pocket ready to go no matter if I have a few minutes to prepare at work, or if I'm at home. Cut and paste is easier and less time consuming then retyping or rewriting the info. Search functions work faster then indexes.

With the magazine in this format, I can choose the articles in my "best of" and when it gets printed.

I can collect all the articles under one "name" and take that collection with me instead of 50 magazines.

It also takes up less room on my shelf, which means ultimately less grumbling from my fiance that my hobby takes up WAY too much shelf real estate...

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But I don't think the comparison is correct. D&D isn't the same as say, The New York Times...D&D isn't designed to just be read. It's designed to be used...My Digital stuff is INFINITELY more usable to me then my books for these things...cut and paste...Search functions work faster then indexes.

With the magazine in this format, I can choose the articles in my "best of" and when it gets printed.

I can collect all the articles under one "name" and take that collection with me instead of 50 magazines.

It also takes up less room on my shelf, which means ultimately less grumbling from my fiance that my hobby takes up WAY too much shelf real estate...

I find myself really agreeing with scribble here and perhaps this is the essential divide. There are those who use these magazines and those who collect/view these magazines (with a lot of grey in between). Obviously the former are going to appreciate the DI more so than others.
However in saying that, Paizo were spanning the above extremes by producing their web enhancements for each of the dungeon issues - something I think those who ran their adventures REALLY appreciated. I suppose in the end, the majority of us still feel cheated in some way, although the DI as it stands does seem to be the way forward. Only time will tell.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[GVDammerung]

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

Wow. This is facinating and troubling stuff. Thanks. I'd definitely be interested in the Dungeon numbers when/if you can find them.

 

[Erik Mona]

I don't seem to be able to find the Dungeon numbers, though I will keep looking. I think it's largely an issue of forgetting what I named the damn file two years ago.

Three important things to keep in mind that don't immediately suggest themselves by looking at these numbers:

1) For newsstand sales, "efficiency" is much more important than number of copies distributed. A lot of the "bloat" that came about at the beginning of 3e (aside from genuine excitement about the new edition) came from the magazines being packaged with massive sellers Top Deck (then riding the Pokemon boom) and Star Wars Insider. That got Dragon in a lot of places it really had no business being (7/11, grocery stores), and hurt our efficiency. In the last couple years we closed a lot of those accounts, which greatly improved our bottom line.

2) The magazine went up in price once and possibly twice during the 3e era. That also helped with revenues while not necessarily driving up distribution.

3) Paizo sold (and continues to sell, actually) a fairly astounding number of back issues direct to the consumer, usually within two or three months of the magazine's actual release. Those numbers are not reflected on the statement of ownership, but they equate to thousands of dollars every week for the company.

I'll keep looking for those Dungeon numbers. They're actually quite interesting because a lot of Dragon readers became Dungeon readers with the disastrous decision to make Dragon a "player only" magazine and the lackluster few issues of the "relaunch" around 323. Dungeon relaunched at the same time and saw significant increases in its distribution, while Dragon did just the opposite. That's the main reason why I changed gears almost immediately upon taking charge around #327.

--Erik

 

[Rauol_Duke]

Erik, thanks for the info and the insight.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

It never occured to me that they'd do that. I wonder if anyone could ever now deduce the actual numbers, and arrive at an accurate distribution figure.

 

[MerricB]

I'll keep looking for those Dungeon numbers. They're actually quite interesting because a lot of Dragon readers became Dungeon readers with the disastrous decision to make Dragon a "player only" magazine and the lackluster few issues of the "relaunch" around 323. Dungeon relaunched at the same time and saw significant increases in its distribution, while Dragon did just the opposite. That's the main reason why I changed gears almost immediately upon taking charge around #327.

Thanks muchly, Erik!

Cheers!

 

[Nellisir]

I find myself really agreeing with scribble here and perhaps this is the essential divide. There are those who use these magazines and those who collect/view these magazines (with a lot of grey in between). Obviously the former are going to appreciate the DI more so than others.

I think trouble will arise from "readers" outnumbering users. I am certainly a reader; despite having over 200 issues of Dragon, I've "used" perhaps 10 of them. I have fewer Dungeons (50-75), but have used no more than 2 or 3 adventures. Total. Since, ever. It's just not as fun for me to read online. I used to buy Dragon, throw it in my truck, and drag it out to read in little bits for a week or two. I'm not going to bother doing that with a pdf Dragon; I'll occasionally skim an article that looks interesting, but I won't read it cover to cover and I won't read it at all if I don't subscribe to DI (which is likely).

So, DI is going to lose (IMO) most readers and a fair chunk of users. On the upside, printing costs go to near zero and there's probably a tighter revenue path from subscribers to WotC's coffers.

 

[Hussar]

Nellisir - the problem is, you are assuming that your experience reflects the majority of readers. It very well might, but, you have absolutely nothing, other than gut feeling, that backs that up. It could also be very well that you are in a small minority of Dragon or Dungeon buyers that aren't users. We simply don't know.

But, I imagine some bright spark at WOTC likely asked.