Replies

1. 
   highfigh | Nov 17, 2005 01:18am | #1

   I was pretty PO'd when they sent the letter out that they were discontinuing it, especially since it came in the middle of the edition. Their offer to replace the remaining issues with something else was not even close to being an equivalent magazine. I think the high cost of printing it the way they did was its downfall. It wasn't a low priced magazine, but the photo, paper and submission quality were very high. It would have been OK to print it on lower quality paper and cover. Low circulation due to high production costs killed it, IMO, even with the inordinate amount of advertising.

   All of that said, it was a great magazine in many ways. Maybe they can make it available online or on CD at some point in the near future.

   "I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
1. 
   ted | Nov 17, 2005 06:04am | #4

   Paper costs are a small component of the cost of producing a publication. Most of the costs are in the labor, marketing, production and mailing. The magazine went out of business because the audience was limited to a bunch of highend woodworkking enthusiasts and a price that subscribers would be willing to pay per issue. Sad truth was that there wasn't enough of us to spread the costs out and allow Taunton to make the venture profitable.
   The quality of the publication both editorial and paper were excellent cutting costs in either department would have meant compromise that would have been out of synch with the publications mission. As paper quality goes down so does the reproduction quality which would have affected the overall allure of the magazine.

1. 
   mapleman | Nov 17, 2005 06:43am | #5

   Ted,

   As paper quality goes down so does the reproduction quality which would have affected the overall allure of the magazine

   I am not one to bash, but you don't know what you are talking about. I work in the commercial printing industry. You can buy gloss paper from china or spain that rivals any #1 american sheet. The only way reproduction quality would go down would be if you switched to a different type of paper, like uncoated paper. There are different levels of gloss in paper, as well as different degrees of brightness, but the average joe wouldn't know the difference.  As far as paper costs, they are more than what I would call "a small component". They usually represent 25-35% of the cost of a print job.

   The magazine went out of business because the audience was limited to a bunch of highend woodworkking enthusiasts and a price that subscribers would be willing to pay per issue. Sad truth was that there wasn't enough of us to spread the costs out and allow Taunton to make the venture profitable.

   Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. It all adds up to a business venture. It wasn't profitable enough, even with the extremely large number of advertisements. Look at the first issue as compared to the last. The first issue is 2X as thick, with less advertising. It's getting to be the same way with Woodwork magazine.

   Just my $.02 - no harm intended

   Lee

1. 
   ted | Nov 17, 2005 05:04pm | #7

   Yeah you're right about the printing costs. And I guess that was what I meant about the paper. switching to a different type of paper. I use to work in the publishing business. And as I recall the bulk of our costs was in the prepress production followed by marketing, and then postage.

2. 
   creekwood | Nov 17, 2005 03:37am | #2

   When they cancelled it, I almost cried. That was one fantastic magazine. I was fortunate enough to start with the first one, so I have every issue. I go back fairly often to just get some inspiration.

3. 
   dondownunder | Nov 17, 2005 05:19am | #3

   Maybe if we all tell Taunton how much we liked it they'd bring it back. Funny thing is there are magazines in this neck of the woods that would kill for the circulation figures Home Furniture had but it still wasn't viable in its home land. I think we all would have put up with a reduction in the quality of the paper & so on if given the choice between that & axing it. Just my 2c.

   Don
1. 
   WillGeorge | Nov 18, 2005 06:22pm | #9

   that would kill for the circulation figures .. I was in Marketing for awhile.. I have seen some GREAT products go under just because EDIT:: OF the circulation figures.. Them rich folks NEVER look to the future.. And THEY think they are SMART!Edited 11/18/2005 10:23 am by WillGeorge Took me two times to get that Of in there!

   Edited 11/18/2005 10:24 am by WillGeorge

4. 
   vbwoodworks | Nov 17, 2005 04:38pm | #6

    I agree it was a very good publication. I do think they should try it again but target a much wider audience i.e baby boomers or more of the art market. I think quite a lot of people would have paid more for it. I would have paid more for an issue and not thought twice about it. I am still looking for a few issues that I was unable to get.

   Darrin  

5. 
   jackplane | Nov 17, 2005 10:18pm | #8

   As Taunton has discovered, too much of a good thing is a bad thing.