smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Matt Whitby" <matt.whitby@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: anyone know anything more |
| Date | Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:10:09 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (1.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
There are some dreadful magazines in the UK which give the impression
of unwarranted loyalty to artists and it's simple. I just ignore
those magazines.
On 18/01/07, Josh Chasin <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Here's the problem I have with the Amplifier thing.
>
> If you run a magazine, you have two mandates-- ad sales and reader
> acquisition/retention (also cost and operations management but let's keep
> this simple.) If you stop covering releases by labels that don't-- or
> can't-- advertise, and disproportionately, favorably cover artists from
> labels who advertise a lot, don't you end up skewing the content? Don't
> you, as a magazine, inevitably drift toward sucking royally? Won't you be
> less likely to attract and retain readers than the other magazines on the
> rack on the same beat who do a better, more comprehensive job of covering
> the topic your would-be readers are paying to read about? Don't you
> therefore lose readership and circulation, resulting in fewer readers to
> sell TO advertisers, a lower rate base, and LESS advertising revenue?
>
> Or do I just totally not get it...
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.