| |
Main
Date: 20 May 2008 01:51:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
Dr. Frank Brady, who is Chairman of the Department of Mass
Communications, Journalism, Television and Film at St. John's
University, New York and is Professor of Communication Arts and
Journalism at that university, as well as being the founding editor of
Chess Life magazine, has expressed opposition to the plan to put Chess
Life online as follows:
Colleagues:
As the founding Editor of Chess Life, and as someone who has been in
the magazine business for a number of years, I can say the following:
The reason that some magazines and newspapers are switching from print
to on-line versions is because of a lack of advertising (due to the
poor economy). Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times,
told me personally that he was "message agnostic" and that he didn't
care whether there would be a hard copy of the Times or whether it
would eventually be delivered totally online. However, the online
version has yet to make money...and the Times is hurting financially.
Since Chess Life is not an advertising-driven medium (although it has
some ads), it should be looked at from its promotional and "pride"
value.
If I were still on the USCF Board I would definitely vote against
turning Chess Life into an online publication. And for what it is
worth, I have both an online and a home-delivery subscription to The
New York Times, and I rarely ever read the on-line version. I might
also point out that many marketers are giving up on e-mail and online
approaches because it's just not working. They are reverting to the
old tried and true direct mail efforts.
Dr. Frank Brady, President
Marshall Chess Club
|
|
| |
Date: 24 May 2008 20:09:47
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 22, 5:33 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
a) They could put Chess Life on a protected page where you would need
a USCF member password to see it.
b) If the website costs a fraction of what printing costs (and
*editorial* costs are also small) then there would be a net savings to
members, even if anyone could read the site.
If editorial costs are NOT small - as is usually the case with a
quality magazine - the extra overhead of printing the magazine on
paper is indeed still the only way to recover the costs in a practical
manner, both through the sale of the magazine and by advertising.
Even when the printing costs are several times the printing costs.
If the USCF is dying for lack of membership, and there _is_ no way to
fix that - because, while all the standard measures to reach out to
the public are not bringing in enough new members, and it's purely
wishful thinking to suppose it could be otherwise if we just tried
harder - then it may be impossible to avoid all sorts of cutbacks and
paring down, even though these measures may make the problem even
worse.
A smaller organization that can pay its bills can survive, but a
bankrupt one cannot.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2008 07:45:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online Publication
|
"Quadibloc" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b9a00e15-0aff-4faa-b8d8-073c45ec745c@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 5:33 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
>
> a) They could put Chess Life on a protected page where you would need
> a USCF member password to see it.
Which wouldn't encourage potential members
> b) If the website costs a fraction of what printing costs (and
> *editorial* costs are also small) then there would be a net savings to
> members, even if anyone could read the site.
>
> If editorial costs are NOT small - as is usually the case with a
> quality magazine - the extra overhead of printing the magazine on
> paper is indeed still the only way to recover the costs in a practical
> manner, both through the sale of the magazine and by advertising.
The trouble is that there is an assumption here that 'the market' is somehow
homogeneous. The fact is that half the membership is rated less than 1000.
Adult lub players average about 1350-1600. Can you write the same material
for both? And this is not even to address those above 1600 who presumably
are the active tournament players who get CL to look for tournaments!
> Even when the printing costs are several times the printing costs.
>
> If the USCF is dying for lack of membership, and there _is_ no way to
> fix that - because, while all the standard measures to reach out to
> the public are not bringing in enough new members, and it's purely
> wishful thinking to suppose it could be otherwise if we just tried
> harder - then it may be impossible to avoid all sorts of cutbacks and
> paring down, even though these measures may make the problem even
> worse.
The issue of 'membership' and 'chess readers' is quite distinct.
Every week Chessville produces about 5 times as much chess material as CL
does per month. It addresses every level of play, and is timely. CL can't
compete with that.
OTOH, if 'membership organization' is insisted upon, then as someone has
said, its essential to put a piece of paper into the members hands on a
frequent basis.
Thereby print magazines for chess have two main problems: One is to write to
a distinct market segment, and the other to do something e-zine's cannot,
which is provide useful chess information to people that can be used away
from the computer.
One option for CL is to become a quarterly, perfect bound [at least a marked
spine], well-indexed record of the preceeding quarter's chess activity, and
to address specific markets.
It also needs to select which market segments it intends to address in each
of its variantss - since essentially those players below 1350 are still
learners, and those above that rating level require deeper analysis suitable
for tournament play, not just glosses.
What are we to make of the adult membership anyway?
Half of themn play no rated games.
Half of those who do play, don't achieve more than a provisional rating.
Which leaves just 7,500 adult members playing more than 10 games per year.
We must presume that those who 'sign up just for the magazine' are therefore
not principally interested int he depth of its chessic analysis, and
therefore might be surveyed for what they do want to read.
There are a variety of strategies for engaging both e-zines and print-zines.
There is a paucity of experience, imagination and will, to actually do so.
In terms of a print vehicle, there is even the cooperative model idea of
working with other chess publishers to produce the best articles from their
e-publishing - representing the quarter-year in question.
If Dr. Brady has made objection to acting on insufficient research in reader
habits and preferences - good for him! If he has objected to an
insufficiently strategised business lurch by Mr. Goichberg and Friends, even
better for him!
Phil Innes
> A smaller organization that can pay its bills can survive, but a
> bankrupt one cannot.
>
> John Savard
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2008 16:33:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
[quote="Harry Payne"][quote="samsloan"]In the 1990s, the USCF
consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5 million.
In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
equipment business".
After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
Making Chess Life subscription based only would cause the USCF to lose
at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
million in revenues.
It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
becomes profitable again.
It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
the USCF is profitable again.
The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
cows.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam, consider what you are saying. I am one who has fought to keep
a hardcopy Chess Life. I argued the point many times on this Forum.
But the facts are it costs over $200,000.00 a year , The website does
not cost anywhere near that amount. I will hate to see Chess Life go
100% on line. But if that is what it takes to save the USCF, SO BE IT!
It is at least worth a try, if it does not look as though it will fly,
it can be reversed. [/quote]
This is just the problem. It cannot be reversed.
Once Chess Life is gone, it is gone. There will be such a huge drop in
revenues that it will be impossible to bring it back.
It may cost over $200,000 per year but USCF revenues are $3.2 million
per year. Do you expect the USCF to just keep all the money and give
nothing to the members?
Websites are free. Nobody pays to view them.
You think I am writing all of this just to attack Goichberg? You are
mistaken. I am trying to save the magazine.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2008 05:42:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 21, 7:27 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 21, 6:12 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 5:25 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > As you MUST know -- or so I hope -- a significant percentage of USCF
> > > > members (in my time, it was about 50 percent) do not play in a
> > > > single tournament in a year. The hardcore tournament cadre was
> > > > about eight to 10,000.
>
> > > > [And the rest of them are only members so they get _Chess Life_.]
>
> > > Why not just sell these people a subscription to the magazine?
>
> > > Dave.
>
> > > --
> > > David Richerby Confusing Evil T-Shirt (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's genuinely
> > > evil and you can't understand it!
>
> > In the 1990s, the USCF consistently had annual revenues of about $6.5
> > million.
>
> > In 2004, the Executive Board decided to "get rid of the books and
> > equipment business".
>
> > After that was done, revenues dropped to $3.2 million.
>
> > Making Chess Life subscription based only would cause the USCF to lose
> > at least 20,000 members (probably more) and would cost at least one
> > million in revenues.
>
> > It seems unlikely that the USCF will survive this.
>
> > Remember that all this is being done just to protect Goichberg's
> > sacred cows. Eliminate the sacred cows, and the USCF immediately
> > becomes profitable again.
>
> > It is not the magazine that is causing the USCF to lose money. It is
> > the website. Cut down on the unnecessary expenses of the website and
> > the USCF is profitable again.
>
> > The current threat facing the USCF membership is that the entire
> > organization could go under just because of protecting a few sacred
> > cows.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> "Sacred cows?" I don't think we've herd the last of this......
During my one year on the board, I was censured and Joel Channing
filed an ethics complaint against me which he later withdrew for
raising the issues of these sacred cows.
Now that I am no longer on the board, my position is even more
tenuous. I have already been banned for one year for posting to the
USCF Issues Forum, although the ban has not been put into effect
because it is being "reviewed".
For this reason, I cannot spell out in public what those scared cows
are. However, they are obvious. Any USCF member who calls me I will be
willing to tell him. However, I will not discuss this with the non-
member anti-USCF crowd such as Phil Innes for example.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2008 06:26:12
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Frank Brady opposes plan to turn Chess Life into Online
|
On May 20, 2:51 am, samsloan <[email protected] > quoted, in part:
> Since Chess Life is not an advertising-driven medium
Although I tend to agree with his sentiments - particularly as my
local public library has a subscription to Chess Life - I'm afraid
this particular statement in his letter is the biggest single argument
in _favor_ of going electronic with CL.
Essentially, switching from paper to electronic has the downside of
reducing the perceived value of an issue, and of making it more
difficult to sell copies instead of giving them away. If one isn't in
the business of selling copies to make money, then *if the USCF is in
financial difficulties*, switching to an on-line version of Chess
Life, particularly if at least some portion of the savings this
generates could be passed on to the membership in reduced membership
dues (otherwise, the demands of forest conservation notwithstanding, I
encourage USCF members to fight it tooth and nail) would seem to be a
natural and inevitable step.
John Savard
|
|
