Three reasons:
1) The editorial inconsistency of the past two years, with Matthew Lee Sernett being replaced just as his mostly positive changes were starting to settle in. While Erik Mona will very likely be a good thing for the magazine, $40 is too much to take the risk of another year of a mixed bag of tricks.
2) The lousy shipping schedule that often sees my issue arrive in the mail as much as two weeks AFTER my local comic book store has it on the shelf! Unacceptable.
3) The price, as I mentioned above, is simply too expensive for anything less than a must-have subscription. I work in magazine publishing so I understand the plight of niche magazines, but $7/copy and $40/year generally only works for niche trade magazines, not consumer-oriented ones. Along with the editorial shuffling, Paizo needs to get its ad sales department in order and tap into better advertisers. Or value its audience a bit more and raise its ad rates to a level where they can provide more support for the magazine, instead of asking subscribers to bear the burden. I'd offer more specifics on this but for some reason I am unable to access Dragon or Dungeon's rate cards.
How to get me back? Three ways:
1) Erik Mona's editorial direction needs to become clear very quickly and very cleanly. Piecemeal changes over the next six months will ensure that I remain a newsstand browser from hereon out.
2) Figure out a way to ensure subscriber copies arrive before they hit the newsstand. It's one of the main reasons, besides price, that people subscribe to magazines instead of buying them individually. And please don't blame the Post Office, either. I live in a major city and get all of my other subscriptions in a timely fashion.
3) Offer a better deal on subscriptions. The current 54% discount sounds like a great deal on the surface, but for a magazine that can easily go a couple of months without containing anything critical, or even useful, for some portion of its subscribers, it's simply not good enough. Or, better yet, make a deal with WotC for some promotional swag and offer two types of subscriptions: $24.99 for the magazine only; $39.99 for the magazine and free swag with EVERY issue.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
>>>
1) Erik Mona's editorial direction needs to become clear very quickly and very cleanly. Piecemeal changes over the next six months will ensure that I remain a newsstand browser from hereon out.
>>>
The last several editorials haven't been clear enough? Take a look at 329 and 330, and you'll see where we're headed.
I don't plan to abandon the magazine any time soon.
--Erik
|
I plan on renewing my subscription because each Dragon I've recieved in the past 6 months has had something that I've used in my game I'm running. Guy does have one good point though. Several of my issues have been quite late but not recently and one didn't arrive at all but I did recieve a replacement with no hassle or cost to me.
On subscriptions,maybe you could offer a better renewal rate for current subscribers to help encourage renewing subscription or long time subscriber discount.
I truly enjoy and look forward to seeing each and every Dragon that has appeared in my mailbox. Keep up the good work, Erik. Huzzahs!
~Larry
I don't know if the changes that have been made are supposed to affect Canada as well, but I've been getting the magazines a lot quicker the last couple issues. I've found something useful in each magazine I've received so far.
I do think it would be good do get some other advertisers in there to offset your costs a bit. I'm not sure what your corporate structure is, but my assumption at this point is that Paizo is owned by Wizards... The magazine could be a lot more useful if the third-party products were allowed into the magazine. I understand that Wizards is trying to advertise their own game, and it makes sense to say that only official content should be used in the adventures so that you don't end up publishing material that requires third-party products to use... but on the other hand, maybe you should treat non-core D&D products as a third-party publisher as well? I've picked up Unearthed Arcana a number of times, and I've not yet found anything compelling enough to make me want to buy it, yet on a regular basis I see references to XYZ from Unearthed Arcana. That means that that material isn't useful to me. Wizards owns the core products, but beyond that, it should be a level playing field (IMO) where any third-party product has an equal opportunity to be referenced in material printed in Dragon or Dungeon.
In regards to the cost per issue and subscription cost issue, a couple thoughts.
A subscription price of $39 per year is a steal in my opinion for a magazine of this calibre (ditto for DUNGEON). That works out to $3.25 per issue, which is remarkably inexpensive just for the fun of paging through each issue, glancing through the articles, and enjoying the ads (in most magazines, I skip the ads; in these two magazines, I actually pay attention to and enjoy them). If I find something of use for my games within an issue (and every issue has something that inspires directly or indirectly), then the value only increases that much more.
I am no economic expert, but it seems to me that $3.25 per issue doesn't even keep up with the rise of inflation and the ever-expanding costs of paper over the past decades. I would venture a guess that no one is getting wealthy publishing either magazine, especially at these low prices.
Sometimes, the value of an issue comes not from the "crunch" offered (although sometimes that too comes in useful). Sometimes, the value comes through inspiration or idea kernals. James Jacobs' excellent article on Lovecraft in D&D a few issues back, for example, inspired me to go back and re-read my Lovecraft books and page through my copy of d20 CoC (not to mention the Chaosium version). That article got me thinking about ideas for two different campaigns.
Just my two cents..
>>>
1) Erik Mona's editorial direction needs to become clear very quickly and very cleanly. Piecemeal changes over the next six months will ensure that I remain a newsstand browser from hereon out.
>>>The last several editorials haven't been clear enough? Take a look at 329 and 330, and you'll see where we're headed.
I don't plan to abandon the magazine any time soon.
--Erik
Erik,
While your editorials - as well as your admirable input in this forum - may make your intentions clear, I'm referring to the actual results of those intentions becoming clear, and quickly. Sernett wrote some promising editorials when he took over, too, but it took a while for his changes to come to pass, I'm assuming partly due to a backlog of already-committed articles.
My main point there was that, with the unfortunate timing of my subscription expiring with #329, I was faced with the choice of gambling another $40 on your stated intentions, or waiting to see how they play out over the next few months. In light of my actually liking where Sernett seemed to be taking the magazine, and new issues getting to the store before my mailbox, it became an easy decision.
Also, while I sincerely appreciate your responding to my post, I am a bit disappointed that you only dealt with one of my points, and rather defensively at that. Please understand that I am a big fan of the magazine and D&D in general, and am a big supporter of the hobbies I love and the products that go along with it. When something is worth it to me, I not only happily spend money on it, I try to spread the word wherever possible. (Check my Amazon reviews for various WotC products.) Lately, however, Dragon has drifted over to the not-quite-worth-it side of the ledger sheet.
I was particularly hoping someone at Paizo would address my point about your ad sales. I was finally able to get to your media kit today and was disappointed in what I found. One of the biggest problems is that it's designed more for fans who might be interested in subscribing to the magazine, not the media buyers who stand in the way of the big accounts. There's no real information on Dragon's circulation - numbers or demographics; are you guys audited? - and your rates are appallingly low for such a targeted publication, suggesting one of two things: low circulation numbers or low self-esteem.
I would welcome the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about this, whether here or backchannel.
Sincerely,
Guy LeCharles Gonzalez
I think the direction of the magazine and the recent relaunch have been outstanding. I actually stopped buying both Dungeon and Dragon in late 2003/early 2004 because I was so disappointed with the way the magazines were being handled, and I haven't been a subscriber to either since the 1990's.
As I recall, you were quite cranky about having to give up one of your collections too... though if my Dungeon collection went back to issue #1 and my Dragon collection into the mid issue 20somethings, I probably would have been cranky too.
I think the magazines have improved a lot too, though I'm only a generic reader and know nothing about the media ad and funding requirements. I like to support my local gaming store, so I have generally paid cover price for the magazine - which comes from having had several family members who owned gaming stores (regrettably not locally). I focus on Dungeon myself, and I have to say that even at $7, it is still a bargain, as I used to pay almost that for modules when I was still a kid.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Sernett wrote some promising editorials when he took over, too, but it took a while for his changes to come to pass, I'm assuming partly due to a backlog of already-committed articles.
Correct. We work a few months ahead, so it's always going to take a while for a change to work its way into the "new" issue. As I said before, #329 reflects my input on the magazine more than the previous issues, and #330 even more than that. Beyond that, my influence should be clear each and every issue.
My main point there was that, with the unfortunate timing of my subscription expiring with #329, I was faced with the choice of gambling another $40 on your stated intentions, or waiting to see how they play out over...
That's reasonable. I suggest picking up #329 and #330. If you don't care for those, you probably won't care for the direction of the magazine.
Incidentally, I'd be interested in hearing which of the changes that took place during Matt's tenure you liked, and why.
I sympathize regarding the store getting their issues before subscribers. This has been a big problem for us, and we've recently taken steps to fix it. Unfortunately, like any "new" editorial ideas we have, these things take a while to filter down to the consumer, so it's only been with the last couple of issues of each magazine that we've started to hear positive developments regarding the problem. I'd be interested in any input readers on this thread have on the matter, since anecdotal evidence is all we really have going for us right now.
Also, while I sincerely appreciate your responding to my post, I am a bit disappointed that you only dealt with one of my points, and rather defensively at that.
I'll cop to being a little defensive in my post, sure. And I can see how you might think re-subscribing to a magazine based on promises in editorials might expect a bit much. I stand by my track record and what we accomplished with Dungeon, however, and fully intend to bring the same energy and focus on Dragon. All I ask is that you check out #329 and #330. If you like what you see, I urge you to consider subscribing once again.
I didn't speak to the ad issue because I am not our ad salesperson, and am not really qualified to be posting about it publicly. I suspect our ad guy, Rob Stewart, would be interested in your thoughts. You can contact him directly at rob.stewart@paizo.com.
Please understand that I am a big fan of the magazine and D&D in general, and am a big supporter of the hobbies I love and the products that go along with it. When something is worth it to me, I not only happily spend money on it, I try to spread the word wherever possible. (Check my Amazon reviews for various WotC products.) Lately, however, Dragon has drifted over to the not-quite-worth-it side of the ledger sheet.
I'm a bit confused by this. You appreciated Matt's changes to the magazine, but you feel that Dragon is "not quite worth it" lately? All I can say is that I think there is ample room for improvement in Dragon, as I outlined in my first two editorials. Again, please check out #329 and #330. I think we've managed to keep the best elements of the recent "relaunch" while adding dynamic new content aimed at our core audience.
I was particularly hoping someone at Paizo would address my point about your ad sales. I was finally able to get to your media kit today and was disappointed in what I found. One of the biggest problems is that it's designed more for fans who might be interested in subscribing to the magazine, not the media buyers who stand in the way of the big accounts. There's no real information on Dragon's circulation - numbers or demographics; are you guys audited?
The circulation information is on the last page of our 4-page ad pamphlet. We are also required to print our circulation numbers once a year. This year, you can find the full breakdowns in Dungeon #118 (p. 57) and Dragon #327 (p. 57).
I suggest sending Rob Stewart an email if you want a more detailed discussion about ad rates and the like.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
One general note - Dungeon 120 and Dragon 329 should have marked the start of a new shipping method that is intended to help us get issues to subscribers before retail stores. (I say "should have," because Dungeon 120 may have been held up slightly as kinks were worked out with the first issue through the system.)
I'm not sure what your corporate structure is, but my assumption at this point is that Paizo is owned by Wizards...
Wizards has no ownership in Paizo. However, Wizards owns Dragon, Dungeon, and Amazing Stories - we publish them under license. The upshot is that they have full approval over everything in all three of those magazines. (Undefeated is entirely our own.)
why are you guys required to [print your circulation numbers annually], Erik? I've seen that and have never known why.
It's a requirement from the US Post Office; if we didn't, we wouldn't be allowed to use periodicals-rate postage fro shipping subscriber copies, and subscriptions would be much, much, much more expensive.
So far I like the redesign of the magazine...and I'm very excited to see where to goes. As for the price, $80 a year for both Dungeon & Dragon is well worth it for the entertainment that I get out of them. However, the one thing I find to be a problem is the shipping time.
For the last week or so I've returned after work and excitedly gone to get the mail, hoping that my next issue of Dungeon will be in there...and alas, still nothing. I'm more disappointed than my kid sister who is waiting to hear back from colleges! I’m not sure if it is because “Periodical rate” = slow boat from China, or if it is because my local postal worker likes to read my subscription before he passes it on to me. Either way, it is a very annoying problem, since I tend to get Dungeon/Dragon about a day before it hits newsstands. But alas, until my postal worker decides to get his own subscription, I guess I’ll just have to wait.
|
|
I just wanted to say that one of the things that I greatly look forward to are the articles on the Forgotten Realms and Eberron worlds coming up. I've been a loooong time fan of Forgotten Realms and is still the only game product that I buy regularly. Recently I've also been buying the Eberron product as well, even though I'm not running or playing in it. It's that good. It's a good idea to support these game world in Dungeon and Dragon magazine to help their sales. The more information on a world, the more real it seem to me. That's one of the main reasons I dislike Greyhawk compared to Forgotten Realms, not as much coverage of the world. But that's just my opinion.
~Larry