rbcoomer
Active member
I think the worry is what will happen in the longer term. I'm sure advertisers will have had 'deals' for multiple magazine coverage anyway and the circulation for any that did will have now fallen - so which title will be next? IMHO it's wrong to allow the tail to wag the dog and it should be looked at from the other way - good content leads to more readers and more readers results in a better return/more incentive for advertisers. The first aspect in the chain appears to have been addressed and yet no time allowed for the effect to be felt? What a missed opportunity! Back in 1989, a colleague and I ran a nightclub for receivers - the owner had gone bust due to overspend and as primary creditors, the bank a brewery wanted to sell as a going concern. Conventional wisdom said that the club didn't open on unprofitable nights - so being a seaside town, as summer receded the nights were cut until they were only open Friday & Saturday nights. We took a different view (with some initial scepticism but support of the brewery) and, based on evidence that closing Monday impacted Tuesday and so on, opened all week. We more than trebled winter period profits against the previous year! The fact is that reducing your profile has a knock on effect and I can't help wonder what the advertisers responses will be when they come to review their own budgets? Creating a market for someone else to fill is a brave gamble in respect of remaining titles...