Just a word from the object of your hatred and hostility!
I know that many of you are feeling the pain of the change in Dungeon/Polyhedron and Polyhedron/Dungeon. Let me just explain what we were smoking for a few lines.
First of all, fulfillment houses charge a minimum fee for handling magazine subscription lists--even when they aren't shipping the magazines or making very many changes to the files (they also charge by the phone call and email for making those changes, but that is a different story). As a result, we were taking a significant hit every month on Dungeon/Polyhedron that wasn't helping our expense ledger and wasn't helping our readers. Worse than that, we were taking the hit in months when we received NO revenue but we had the expense, anyway. So, it seemed logical to go monthly so we could spread out that liability and remove a little of the pain by having some revenue in every month.
Now, some have asked why we didn't just split the magazines and have two bi-monthlies. Gee, then we'd have TWO monthly maintenance fees and ONE with no revenue every month. So, that wasn't a good solution.
Second, when I was Group Publisher at Wizards of the Coast, I was told to either kill Dungeon or kill Polyhedron. WotC had decided that we couldn't afford to publish both magazines. Yet, I believed and my staff believed that we could avoid those dire ends by combining the two magazines and selling them at a higher price. We had hoped that the combination of the two would provide for a higher paid circulation and would, in turn, attract more ads. Since the combined paid circulation was still 10,000 paid circulation below Dragon, most advertisers who could only advertise in one magazine opted for Dragon. The extra two dollars per copy was nice, but we only collected 90 cents of that and the print and paper billings were eating it up pretty quickly in returns. PLUS, the art and editorial bills were still the same as trying to fill two magazines.
At first, it looked like we were succeeding, but as we began to tally up the final numbers on Dungeon #93 and #94, we realized that we were breaking even on better selling issues and losing money on poor selling issues. This time, as president of Paizo, I was confronted with the same decision I had faced as group publisher at WotC. I either had to kill Dungeon or Polyhedron or both in order to keep my business from going down a slippery slope. The grand experiment we had started at Wizards of the Coast was failing. What could I do?
Here's what I thought I could do. I thought I could drop page count if I dropped the price by a dollar. I knew that sales would drop slightly on the newsstand with smaller issues and was using the 45 cents we were making on that extra dollar to ameliorate the lost sales tied to a smaller book. In the meantime, we would save money in postage, printing and paper per issue and that would be a net gain that could let us keep both magazines.
Our distributor didn't want us to drop the price. With astonishing foresight they told me that the readers would not notice the price decrease and unless the page count stayed the same, they would protest, anyway. I said that I had to reduce the page count and if I was going to reduce the page count, I was not about to keep the price the same. I might not cover all of the change, but I would at least give something back to the readers.
For subscribers, I extended the subscriptions of everyone who had two issues or more remaining (as of January 30, 2003) by an additional two issues. Those who had six or more remaining received four additional issues on their subscriptions. Those who had 12 or more issues remaining received six additional issues on their subscriptions. I know that this doesn't entirely even things out on the change, but instead of being the greedy bastard I've been portrayed as on these message boards, I was actually trying to ease a transition and give something back to the subscribers, even as I changed the product.
In addition, we give the subscribers an additional 16 pages in every issue where Polyhedron pages outnumber Dungeon pages. We receive no additional income for this, but we thought it was the right thing to do. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? But the messageboards say we are ambitious and lo, they are honorable men (and women).
Even though we had already scheduled tons of coverage for Dungeon #100, I held the price at $6.99--even though it is basically at the $7.99 size. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? But many of you have said we were greedy (and unethical and arrogant) and lo, you are honorable men (and women).
The truth is that I still think Dungeon/Polyhedron is a terrific buy at $6.99. I defy you to find that many full-color pages of adventure at that price. Yet, I have also heard what you are all saying. The good thing about the magazine business is that it is always changing. Every issue is a new product. SO, I'll make a deal with you. IF Dungeon/Polyhedron is still viable by Origins and GenCon time, I will listen to you all at the Paizo at the Mike conferences. At that time, I will discuss options with you and see what you think about other approaches we can try.
I will be away from Paizo doing volunteer work for the next 11 days, but I wanted to let all of you know that the arrogant powers at Paizo really do listen to what you have to say. In spite of those who claim that Dungeon has gone downhill, I can assure you that our efforts in creating the Adventure Path and in using the best talent available to write these adventures is part of our commitment to publishing a high quality Dungeon/Polyhedron with every issue. I know some of you wish I would just kill one or the other magazine and make things easy, but I'm not Solomon and I'm not sure I could make the right decision.
Sincerely,
Dr. Johnny L. Wilson
President, Paizo Publishing, LLC
Fat Greedy Bastard of All That's Evil in Publishing
That's probably why there's a culture clash - for those who like D&D adventures, Dungeon mag's been too good for too long, and the concept of paying for pages which you'll probably never use in a game and can't ever see yourself using in a game is putting an end to what Dungeon subscribers took for granted...or, at least, that's my take on it, and pretty much the way I feel about it currently.
