A loyal reader of CoversSell.Com tipped me off to an article by Bert Archer from the Toronto Standard
titled, The Ken Whyte Effect.
see link: http://www.torontostandard.com/business/the-ken-whyte-effect
The writer opens the piece by asking the rhetorical question: What’s the Ken Whyte effect? The author simply can’t understand why Ken keeps getting promoted at Rogers. Why is he confused? Well, because he has looked at some top-line ABC statistics, which is the evidence he uses to engage in a smear. After setting up the straw man, he quickly knocks him down by answering his own question: “Whatever it is, it’s clearly not higher circulation?” Well then, case closed right? Wrong. Very, very wrong.
As one reads on, the writer’s tone becomes quite chippy such as when he says, “But as Whyte’s numbers keep dropping, Rogers keeps promoting him.” It’s puzzling. So why the promotions? It’s a real noodle scratcher. The answer must be that Whyte has successfully ingratiated himself with daddy-type senior managers and “What daddy wants, daddy gets.” Nasty.
It reminded me of a recent episode of Judge Judy, when a younger brother sues his more successful older brother, basically because he is a jealous and petty jackass. As Judge Judy often says, “If it sounds like it doesn’t make sense, it probably doesn’t make sense.”
Are we really supposed to believe that Rogers, a publicly traded company, a well-managed corporate giant in Canada, is promoting someone who is driving the business into the ground? Is that really probable? Or is it more likely that Whyte is being promoted because, like most people who get promotions, he has earned it, by making his employer a lot of money? It’s a hard decision to make. I don’t know about you, but I’m guessing he is making his employer a lot of money. I suppose it didn’t occur to the Toronto Standard to ask why it is that Time Canada is no longer in business, rather than attacking Whyte?
Whyte took over Maclean’s in March of 2005. In those pre-great-recession days, all good circulators were told to deliver as many eyeballs as possible, as cheaply as possible, to justify an advertising-centric business model. This often compelled circulators to give away copies post expiration to help prop up the rate base. And circulation pros often turned to cheap, agency-sold subscriptions, with weak remit rates and poor renewal rates, to prop up the readership numbers. Good for advertising, but not good from a circulation profit/loss perspective. It all made sense when advertising sales were buoyant. But the new reality is, circulation profitability is back in style.
Since ABC statistics are being used as evidence against Mr. Whyte, let’s use ABC statistics to offer a more likely reason for why Rogers is promoting him.
The June 2004 ABC statement shows that Maclean’s
was giving away an average of 21,435 copies per issue to subscribers post expiration. The Dec 2004 ABC statement shows that Maclean’s
was giving away 17,309 copies per issue post expiration. Therefore, in 2004 the venerable weekly was printing roughly 1 million copies a year for which they were receiving zero circulation revenue. Printing, postage, and fulifllment costs would have been staggering.
Today, grace copies are rougly 4,400 per issue. That’s probably close to a million dollars straight to the bottom line, just by radically reducing freebies.
The June 2004 ABC statements show that Maclean’s
was selling on average 7,252 single copies. The December 2004 ABC statement shows that Maclean’s
was selling 8,874 single copies on average. That’s roughly 419,000 copies at a $4.95 cover price. So let’s call it $2,074,050 in gross retail sales before Whyte’s arrival.
Today, the June 2010 ABC statement shows single copy sales averaging 29,425 and the December ABC statement with single copy sales averging 20,460. That’s roughly 1,297,010 copies at a cover price of $5.95. Let’s call it approximately $7,717,209 in gross retail sales. That’s a 272% improvement, and millions more straight to the bottom line.
Don’t forget all the money that would be flowing in from increased insert card production from single copy sales, a source circulation professionals know generates great upfront cash and fabulous renewal revenue for years to come. My guess is that this highly profitable source of circulation is now replacing a large chunk of the low-efficiency agency-sold subs that circulators used to rely on like a bad addiction to appease the advertising department.
Let’s not talk about the money from Special Interest Publications that Ken’s team is now routinely cranking out. Oh, OK, let's. The Olympic Special sold over 109,000 copies at $9.95, generating $1,090,758 on gross newsstand revenue in 2010. The Royal Engagement issue sold another 40,000 copies at $6.95 for a cool $278,000. And the Newsmakers special is poised to sell another 23,000 copies at $7.95 for a little extra pocket change of $182,850. And, let’s not forget the University Guide which sold nearly 19,000 copies at $19.95 for another $379,050. Not bad, considering so many pundits wrote off Maclean’s
when Ken took over the helm, claiming the brand, and the newsweekly genere, had lost its mojo. Really?
If I start imagining the money that is being earned on improved renewal rates, or the money that is being saved by not chasing inflated rate bases…the millions and millions are starting to make me dizzy and very green with envy.
Readers are prepared to pay for a quality product. Sure, top-line circulation numbers are down, but circulation geeks like me call that “managing down” the unprofitable circulation and “managing up” circulation profitability… big time!
I could go on, but I think if Judge Judy were reading this she’d likely say, “Case dismissed.”
After listening to NOW
magazine editor Susan G. Cole defend her Rob Ford cover on the radio, and after reading my recent blog post on MastheadOnline.com
, a graphic designer (who prefers to remain nameless) decided to have some fun. He has Photoshop equipment, so he turned on his computer and created a mock cover featuring Susan’s face rather than Rob’s on NOW
’s cover. The cover lines are arguably offensive, perhaps funny to others, but I am not comfortable posting to this blog. What’s good for the Goose is not Good for the Gander.
This unsolicited work came with the following note:
“When I heard Susan G. Cole, the editor of NOW
, defend the cover on the radio last week, I decided to see how she would like it. Here’s what I put together. I sent it to Susan G. Cole and some radio personalities like Arlene Bynon and John Oakley. Arlene sent me a reply, but I haven’t heard back from Ms. Cole.”
magazine’s Rob Ford cover has created quite a lot of noise this past week. One defense offered is “free speech”, a principled position indeed. But sometimes speech isn’t free, if you have to defend a libel suit. That’s called libel chill. Others believe pragmatisim trumps principles, and that if it is good for business, then so be it. Free market capitalist triumphantalism at its best.
Another argument is that the ends justify the means… i.e. that since Rob Ford is politically incorrect, and dangerous… all’s fair in love and war. Apparently NOW is waging a war or sorts. Call it a class war or call it a classless war. Others have suggested that the comedy value of the Photoshopped cover is obvious, and that everyone should just lighten up. Fair enough. As for sex trade ads in a “progressive” magazine and questions of double standards, oh well, who cares, right?
Lost in all the noise is whether or not the Canadian Society of Magazine Editors (CSME) should adopt some guidelines or code of conduct, similar to the Society of Professional Journalists (which is U.S.-based, but accepts Canadian members): http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Read the code and then ask yourself:
Are these guidelines smart or stupid?
Are these guidelines helpful or harmful?
Are these guidelines of any value in free market/free speech democracies like the U.S. or Canada?
Are limits of any kind, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, reasonable or a threat to our liberty?
So let’s vote on two items. The first one is just for fun, the second I hope will actually spark some intelligent debate.
Visit my blog on Coverssell.com
to vote on the Rob Ford cover:
You can also vote on the following question:
Should the Canadian Society of Magazine Editors strike a committee to look at developing a made-in-Canada set of guidelines?
Visit by clicking here
The Naked Truth cover of NOW
magazine is, let’s be honest, very effective. It’s hard to miss. And for a controlled circulation product, getting people to stop and pick it up is job #1. But it also has been effective at job #2… creating buzz, and the naked truth is, everyone is talking about it. That’s good news for future PMB surveys, and that’s helpful for generating advertising revenues.
I love “gutsy” covers that dare to be controversial.
I love it when periodicals create buzz, and when readers engage.
And I love advertising revenue, the more the better, as it pays for editors, art directors, freelancers, printers… my colleagues and friends in this crazy publishing business.
The good news for NOW
is that they don’t have to worry about people cancelling their subscriptions, or deciding not to renew their subscriptions, because NOW
is not a paid circulation title, so these considerations are irrelevant.
So, in shorts, the cover has done its job brilliantly. But wait a minute… not so fatso. When my 13-year-old daughter saw the cover of NOW
on my desk she said: “That’s just mean.”
So is the cover funny or about the money? Great, or about hate?
My first thought was: how might media critics, bloggers, pundits and thought-leaders react if Maclean’s
magazine did a similar cover with Jean Charest on their cover? Are certain magazines held to a different standard, and if so, why?
Or, what if Toronto Life
dared to publish this exact same Rob Ford cover? Having worked for Toronto Life
for 12 years, I think I know what would have come down. First of all, we probably would have been sued. Secondly, the phones would have lit up with subscription cancellations. Letters to the editor would have been venomous.
Political figures have always been fair game, and over the years Toronto Life
certainly took on Mike, Bob and Dalton as equal opportunity cover boys, despite the fact that political covers never sold well on newsstands regardless of partisan political affiliations.
One editor called these types of covers “noble bombs” because, it was argued, “ it’s the right thing to do”, regardless of the negative impact on newsstand sales and insert card production. These were sacrifices that sometimes needed to be made. I reluctantly agreed then, and still agree today: it can’t always be about the money. The cover is the brand.
As for municipal political targets, these covers never worked either, regardless of the candidates’ political leanings, left, right or center. Toronto Life
even “profiled” Mel Lastman’s wife, who never ran for political office, but was deemed fair game.
Cover choices were very deliberate. Cost calculations were factored in to the final decision. The cost of replacing cancelled subscriptions and flagging newsstand sales with expensive direct mail campaigns was sobering. Not to mention the cost of our libel insurance and lawyers. Perhaps these financial disciplines help explain why Toronto Life
never Photoshopped any of our previous mayors in their underwear.
The naked truth is that NOW
’s Rob Ford cover would have been considered “tacky”, “cheap, “in poor taste” and even “gross”. Sure it might score some short-term media buzz, but let’s be honest, not too many Toronto Life
subscribers would want that Rob Ford cover staring at them from their living room coffee tables.
The brand’s reputation was simply too valuable to risk for a cheap-shot or partisan media stunt. I doubt NOW
’s senior executives spent much time sweating these things. In fact, I think they achieved their objectives… this cover is probably very good for business, given the recent-reading methodology employed by PMB.
Ask yourself if NOW
would ever do a Photoshopped cover of a female mayor in her underwear? The naked truth is that NOW
would never have dared such a cover with Barbara Hall as mayor.
’s feminist readers would have gone ballistic. And, truth be told, it would never have occurred to them to ridicule Barb’s “figure” because, after all, her politics were left-of-centre, and therefore her weight would not be an appropriate target worthy of humiliation and ridicule in the buff.
Or if George Smitherman was the new mayor, can you imagine a cover with his worship wearing nothing but chaps and making fun of his sexual orientation? Please. But I guess in NOW
’s progressive world, double standards are good for business.
Let’s examine and deconstruct the supporting cover lines.
His Evil Plot to Rule the Right. Translation: Rob Ford is Evil
Dissecting Ford’s Political Anatomy. Translation: Rob Ford is Fat (and evil and stupid)
Cronies, Reformers and Creeps: Robs Inner Circle. Translation: Rob is corrupt and his friends are corrupt, stupid evil, and probably fat too.
What about the article is noteworthy?
Well, for starters the Photoshopped image on page 15 is arguably obscene. Childish name-calling masquerades as intellectually superior journalism, with clever witticisms referring to the mayor as ”Fordo” and “Robo.” Just so there is no mistaking this writer’s opinion of Rob Ford, we are offered this illuminating and intelligent insight, “Let’s be clear. He’s still a nasty mofo.” Translation for those of you not familiar with gutter slang: Rob Ford fucks his mother. I explained to my daughter that that isn’t just mean its disgusting.
I wonder why the writer, Enzo DiMatteo, a veteran journalist, seems perplexed on page 15 of his screed, that, “Ford declined a request to be interviewed for this story.” Really Enzo, that is hard to believe and troubling, isn’t it? I’m shocked.
So when are Photoshopping covers ok and when is it not?
magazine came under criticism for Photoshopping away a scar from Tina Fey’s face. Vanity Fair
was also criticized in the past. When Tina Fey was asked about the Photoshopping of her scar, by Chris Willard of People
magazine, she said, “It’s impossible to talk about it without somehow seemingly exploiting it and glorifying it.”
How did Tina Fey get the scar?
“When she was 5, the future TV star was playing in the front yard of her home when a stranger approached the young Fey and violently cut her cheek,” according to the Willard article.
So what are we to make of all the fuss over Photoshopping away a scar inflicted by a twisted criminal disfiguring a five year old child?
Ground zero for the Photoshopping debate seems to be a cover of National Geographic
According to an article by Dean Lucas:
“In 1982, the magazine wanted to do a story about Egypt’s pyramids. They had an image but it was a horizontal photo that wouldn’t fit on the magazine’s vertical cover. To get around this troublesome problem, photo editors ok’d the use of Scitex to 'squeeze' the two pyramids together. At the time the magazine justified their actions by referring to the digital manipulation as the 'retroactive repositioning of the photographer.' Critics at the time were outraged and on retrospection National Geographic
agreed with them and changed their policy.”
I don’t know about you, but I like the National Geographic
cover. Compare and contrast to NOW
’s Rob Ford cover.
When I asked Kim Pittaway, magazine writer and consultant, former editor of Chatelaine, and past chair of the National Magazine Awards Foundation, about NOW
’s Rob Ford cover she said, “I hate this cover even more than I dislike Rob Ford… which is saying something.” When asked to expand on this Pittaway had plenty to say:
“While some people claim that there is no such thing as bad publicity, this may be the exception to that rule. If the cover treatment overshadows the content of the piece, it’s a miscalculation. Nobody is talking about the article, because the cover is so distasteful. Covers should be smarter than this. To ridicule Ford because of his weight reminds me of when the Federal Conservatives appeared to be ridiculing Jean Chretien’s lips in a political ad. It’s not smart. It doesn’t add anything of substance to the conversation. All it really does is make your opponent more sympathetic.”
Pittaway then suggested I read the code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists (which is U.S.-based, but accepts Canadian members; Pittaway is a member): http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
A few of the Society of Professional Journalists code of Ethics stand out:
1. Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity
2. Avoid stereotyping by…physical appearance (amongst other things)
3. Journalists should abide by the same high standards to which they hold others
4. Make certain that…photos…do not misrepresent (amongst other things)
5. Journalists should expose unethical practises of journalists and the news media
So, why have we heard no howls of protest by the Toronto media or national media over the Rob Ford cover?
What are the Canadian Society of Magazine Editors (CSME) guidelines around Photoshopping covers? Apparently there are no guidelines. Their website yields nothing on this subject of a Code of Ethics, but perhaps this will help spark a debate.
a magazine or a newspaper?
When you Google NOW
, it comes up NOW MAGAZINE. But interestingly, they have never become a member of Magazines Canada. However, like most major Canadian magazines, they are measured by the Print Measurement Bureau (PMB). In CARD, they are listed as a City and Regional Magazine.
’s circulation and readership is impressive. Urban, 25 to 49 years old, good education, strong demographics. Smart business people that they are, NOW
has systematically reduced their circulation (i.e. printing and shipping costs) while increasing their reach, thus making it possible to reduce their CPMs for advertisers, and raise rate card. As a weekly publication, they are now printing 364,000 fewer copies annually than in 2007, that is seriously big savings falling to the bottom line.
Accurate ad revenues are not available as there is no way to know exactly how much advertisers are paying for their space. Leading National Advertisers database (LNA) provides guidance on pages, and revenues are calculated based on 1x gross rates. But there are volume discounts, negotiated discounts, agency discounts, etc. Based on display ads only (excluding inserts, classifieds and sex-trade ads, which would be considerable additional revenue):
To put this in context, NOW
is generating considerably more revenue than Style at Home, Toronto Life, Canadian Gardening, Cottage Life
, just to name a few. The free-market capitalist in me is impressed.
Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936), a humourist, coined the phrase “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” in reference to newspapers. If NOW
considers themselves a newspaper, rather than a magazine, then perhaps we can expect some more salacious Photoshopping attacks.
ever give us a cover of Oprah Winfrey, arguably the most affluent and comfortable women on the planet, Photoshopped in her underwear on the cover? Imagine the lawsuit. Not likely.
Will Eye Weekly
ever give us a Photoshopped cover of Alice Klein, CEO, Editor and co-owner of NOW
, in her underwear because she is financially comfortable? If they did, I bet they could create a lot of media buzz. Not likely. Laas Turnbull, the new publisher is way too smart to fall into the gutter.
I wonder how many millions of dollars those sex-trade “escort ads” in NOW
, which objectify and dehumanize women, have yielded over the years? Enquiring minds want to know…NOW!
Is the Rob Ford cover funny or about the money? I’m guessing money. Is the Rob Ford cover great or about hate? I’m guessing hate.