5 ms·

> At the end of 2022, it had just under 1.8 million subscribers 1,800,000 * $20 => $36,000,000 I don't know what I'm missing and what the overhead

by donatj 3y ago

> At the end of 2022, it had just under 1.8 million subscribers 1,800,000 * $20 => $36,000,000 I don't know what I'm missing and what the overheads are but that seems like it should be able to support a fair number of writers easily? Even so $20 per year seems impractically low. I pay ten times that for my Economist subscription. I really imagine they could strike a middle ground without losing too many subscribers.

whimsicalism 3y ago
I mean they’ll continue to publish the magazine and they have long relied heavily on freelance writers.
blagie 3y ago
I imagine you breathe very rarefied air. $20 is a lot for most families, outside of Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, and a few other areas. Economist has rich subscribers. I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with higher prices. Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos.
- donatj 3y ago
  This is just silly. I live in the Midwest. Even when I was living paycheck to paycheck in rural Minnesota, $20 per year was never a lot of money. > Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos. For the $200 per year I pay for The Economist I could maybe get to Chicago if I got a really good deal.
- zactato 3y ago
  20 is a lot for some people, but it’s like 5/6 beers most places. Sure in the poorest parts of the country this could make or break, but the list of places where people could afford it is much longer than SV, Boston, NYC. What about suburban DC? Dallas? Houston? Denver? Salt Lake City? Chicago? Not sure if your last sentence was intended to be ironic, but there’s nowhere you can fly that’s less than an Economist subscription
  - irrational 3y ago
    A subscription is $209. Allegiant (and many other budget airlines) often have $40-50 round trip airfares.
    - BoxFour 3y ago
      to be fair anywhere you’re going for $50 is probably close enough that it’s not exactly exotic. Looking at allegiant’s site right now the only thing I could find for that price is a flight from Provo to Vegas
  - andirk 3y ago
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who measures money by drinks. I say "cocktails" like "I bet 4 cocktails on the Browns" but sometimes it's beer too. $20 around SF here is less than a couple cocktails.
    - aconsult1 3y ago
      I watched a movie today and ended up ordering pop corn + soda + water. 1 pop corn, 1 soda, 1 water freaking bottle (250ml). They charged me $30 + tips. I think National Geographic (which I'm a subscriber) can charge 10x more without losing 90% of it's audience. It's the price to pay to receive good articles at your home and it's definitely worth tons more than drinking and eating junk in the dark.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  It's $20 a year, not $20/issue. That's $1.67 a month. Every dollar counts when you're impoverished, but I don't think National Geographic is making or breaking it based on a demographic that makes purchasing decisions at that margin.
- cma 3y ago
  > I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with higher prices. Lots of it must be schools and doctor and dentist offices.
- mjmsmith 3y ago
  Lots of people like both. Some people use the photos to help decide where they'd like to fly.
- kortilla 3y ago
  $20 is a meal for 2 or 3 at McDonalds. Update your priors
- soligern 3y ago
  Nonsense. $20 a year for 12 issues of a magazine is absolutely nothing. Most lower income families probably spend more than that on two meals a day. Don’t cheapen the sympathy people have for the poor.
- setr 3y ago
  How are you talking about $20/yr sub being expensive while also comparing that subscription with flying out to various locales? I don’t know where you’re finding such cheap flights
- antonvs 3y ago
  Over 34% of American households make over 100k per year. That's hardly "rarified air". It's more people than voted for Trump.
supportengineer 3y ago
I keep seeing situations like this where the business tried everything except raise the unreasonably low price and maintain the quality.
- ClassyJacket 3y ago
  Lunar Drive in cinema in Melbourne is tragically closing in a few weeks and they did the same thing. Ridiculous rates (council\land tax) of 1000$ a day really hurt them (corrupt bastards), and maybe it would've been unavoidable anyway, but they didn't even try putting up their stupidly low prices. A carload of up to 7 people is STILL only 40$. A normal cinema would be 22 ish each!! Just charge normal prices!
musicale 3y ago
> seems like it should be able to support a fair number of writers easily? I wonder where the money is going? And I wonder how much a 1980s subscription cost (adjusted for inflation?) >> The magazine was initially sold to the public as a perk for joining the society Maybe that's not such a bad idea.
- prawn 3y ago
  Is some going towards contract film crews creating video content? e.g., Bertie Gregory's films?
mjmsmith 3y ago
I'm even more surprised that the standard price for digital+print is only $40/yr. It can't be cheap to print.
- ClassyJacket 3y ago
  Or deliver. I doubt that would even cover shipping.
troymc 3y ago
I was in the local drugstore yesterday, and browsed through the latest National Geographic in the magazine section. It cost $10 Canadian dollars to buy just that one single print issue (including a big map insert). Which is actually quite low; the hobbyist woodworking magazine cost about $15 (for one print issue).
ghaff 3y ago
The Economist, NYT, and WSJ in particular command pretty high subscription prices. Basically a coffee table magazine that most people are just going to flip through once a month probably less so. If I were more price sensitive, I'd probably think twice about my NYT and Economist subscriptions though my dad's on my Economist subscription anyway.
coldtea 3y ago
>I don't know what I'm missing and what the overheads are but that seems like it should be able to support a fair number of writers easily? At the current rate, it could have like 50 full time + part-time writers on staff (let's say 90K * 50 = 4.5M - might seem low for Silicon Valley, but professional journalists and writers would jump with joy for such a gig), plus dozens of office staff (say another 2M), plus fund 24 (2 per issue) year-long big stories with like up to 100K per story (2.5M). That would be like ~10M. They could pay rent, utilities, taxes, and other expenses with the rest of 36M (or even go remote, and save even more).
- bsimpson 3y ago
  It's insane that so many of these massive companies look at successful businesses and go "close it, we make more money in other places" as if net revenue isn't a good thing on its own.
  - cyberneticist 3y ago
    It is because there are all kinds of cost not being factored in here. You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing. I am sure many other cost that we aren't thinking about since not in the magazine business. To me, I am a prime example of someone who use to absolutely love magazines who could not be bothered now. There is no price that will get me to subscribe. I just don't want to be sent paper in the mail.
    - tonightstoast 3y ago
      They have an online subscription. It’s part of Apple News+
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing If you do quality work, you don't need to spend a ton on marketing. And this is very livable revenue - tons of media outlets thrived on less (inflation adjusted) back in the day. The main problem is belonging to some conglomerate who doesn't care for such small profits or a business breaking even. They're an insect to them. A corporation running from a non-profit dedicated to the mission (as opposed to those greedy people), or passionate private owner(s), would have no problem to continue.
taneliv 3y ago
I pay 45€ per year for membership, and subscription of the magazine is the only part of the membership I enjoy. Sure, postage to Europe costs extra, don't know how much. If quality of the magazine deteriorates, I will cancel my membership. If the price goes up by 20%, I don't think I'll even notice.

by donatj 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago

I mean they’ll continue to publish the magazine and they have long relied heavily on freelance writers.

blagie 3y ago

I imagine you breathe very rarefied air. $20 is a lot for most families, outside of Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, and a few other areas. Economist has rich subscribers. I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with higher prices. Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos.

donatj 3y ago
This is just silly. I live in the Midwest. Even when I was living paycheck to paycheck in rural Minnesota, $20 per year was never a lot of money. > Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos. For the $200 per year I pay for The Economist I could maybe get to Chicago if I got a really good deal.
zactato 3y ago
20 is a lot for some people, but it’s like 5/6 beers most places. Sure in the poorest parts of the country this could make or break, but the list of places where people could afford it is much longer than SV, Boston, NYC. What about suburban DC? Dallas? Houston? Denver? Salt Lake City? Chicago? Not sure if your last sentence was intended to be ironic, but there’s nowhere you can fly that’s less than an Economist subscription
- irrational 3y ago
  A subscription is $209. Allegiant (and many other budget airlines) often have $40-50 round trip airfares.
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    to be fair anywhere you’re going for $50 is probably close enough that it’s not exactly exotic. Looking at allegiant’s site right now the only thing I could find for that price is a flight from Provo to Vegas
- andirk 3y ago
  I'm glad I'm not the only one who measures money by drinks. I say "cocktails" like "I bet 4 cocktails on the Browns" but sometimes it's beer too. $20 around SF here is less than a couple cocktails.
  - aconsult1 3y ago
    I watched a movie today and ended up ordering pop corn + soda + water. 1 pop corn, 1 soda, 1 water freaking bottle (250ml). They charged me $30 + tips. I think National Geographic (which I'm a subscriber) can charge 10x more without losing 90% of it's audience. It's the price to pay to receive good articles at your home and it's definitely worth tons more than drinking and eating junk in the dark.
woodruffw 3y ago
It's $20 a year, not $20/issue. That's $1.67 a month. Every dollar counts when you're impoverished, but I don't think National Geographic is making or breaking it based on a demographic that makes purchasing decisions at that margin.
cma 3y ago
> I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with higher prices. Lots of it must be schools and doctor and dentist offices.
mjmsmith 3y ago
Lots of people like both. Some people use the photos to help decide where they'd like to fly.
kortilla 3y ago
$20 is a meal for 2 or 3 at McDonalds. Update your priors
soligern 3y ago
Nonsense. $20 a year for 12 issues of a magazine is absolutely nothing. Most lower income families probably spend more than that on two meals a day. Don’t cheapen the sympathy people have for the poor.
setr 3y ago
How are you talking about $20/yr sub being expensive while also comparing that subscription with flying out to various locales? I don’t know where you’re finding such cheap flights
antonvs 3y ago
Over 34% of American households make over 100k per year. That's hardly "rarified air". It's more people than voted for Trump.

supportengineer 3y ago

I keep seeing situations like this where the business tried everything except raise the unreasonably low price and maintain the quality.

ClassyJacket 3y ago
Lunar Drive in cinema in Melbourne is tragically closing in a few weeks and they did the same thing. Ridiculous rates (council\land tax) of 1000$ a day really hurt them (corrupt bastards), and maybe it would've been unavoidable anyway, but they didn't even try putting up their stupidly low prices. A carload of up to 7 people is STILL only 40$. A normal cinema would be 22 ish each!! Just charge normal prices!

musicale 3y ago

> seems like it should be able to support a fair number of writers easily? I wonder where the money is going? And I wonder how much a 1980s subscription cost (adjusted for inflation?) >> The magazine was initially sold to the public as a perk for joining the society Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

prawn 3y ago
Is some going towards contract film crews creating video content? e.g., Bertie Gregory's films?

mjmsmith 3y ago

I'm even more surprised that the standard price for digital+print is only $40/yr. It can't be cheap to print.

ClassyJacket 3y ago
Or deliver. I doubt that would even cover shipping.

troymc 3y ago

I was in the local drugstore yesterday, and browsed through the latest National Geographic in the magazine section. It cost $10 Canadian dollars to buy just that one single print issue (including a big map insert). Which is actually quite low; the hobbyist woodworking magazine cost about $15 (for one print issue).

ghaff 3y ago

The Economist, NYT, and WSJ in particular command pretty high subscription prices. Basically a coffee table magazine that most people are just going to flip through once a month probably less so. If I were more price sensitive, I'd probably think twice about my NYT and Economist subscriptions though my dad's on my Economist subscription anyway.

coldtea 3y ago

>I don't know what I'm missing and what the overheads are but that seems like it should be able to support a fair number of writers easily? At the current rate, it could have like 50 full time + part-time writers on staff (let's say 90K * 50 = 4.5M - might seem low for Silicon Valley, but professional journalists and writers would jump with joy for such a gig), plus dozens of office staff (say another 2M), plus fund 24 (2 per issue) year-long big stories with like up to 100K per story (2.5M). That would be like ~10M. They could pay rent, utilities, taxes, and other expenses with the rest of 36M (or even go remote, and save even more).

bsimpson 3y ago
It's insane that so many of these massive companies look at successful businesses and go "close it, we make more money in other places" as if net revenue isn't a good thing on its own.
- cyberneticist 3y ago
  It is because there are all kinds of cost not being factored in here. You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing. I am sure many other cost that we aren't thinking about since not in the magazine business. To me, I am a prime example of someone who use to absolutely love magazines who could not be bothered now. There is no price that will get me to subscribe. I just don't want to be sent paper in the mail.
  - tonightstoast 3y ago
    They have an online subscription. It’s part of Apple News+
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing If you do quality work, you don't need to spend a ton on marketing. And this is very livable revenue - tons of media outlets thrived on less (inflation adjusted) back in the day. The main problem is belonging to some conglomerate who doesn't care for such small profits or a business breaking even. They're an insect to them. A corporation running from a non-profit dedicated to the mission (as opposed to those greedy people), or passionate private owner(s), would have no problem to continue.

taneliv 3y ago

I pay 45€ per year for membership, and subscription of the magazine is the only part of the membership I enjoy. Sure, postage to Europe costs extra, don't know how much. If quality of the magazine deteriorates, I will cancel my membership. If the price goes up by 20%, I don't think I'll even notice.