Re: [AGA SC] deja vu anyone?

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Neil Frank wrote:

> Has ACA been depending on conventions to help support BB? 

I think that, like AGA, they are right on the edge, but with a few 
differences:

  * BB is published 6 times a year with black & white "trading posts" the 
    other 6 months, and ACA dues are $25

  * BB has been using a cheaper printer with rates closer to what 
    we're aiming with the new printer, since Herlong was ousted

  * The ACA had something like 1200 members last I checked, but this may
    have gone up since the last convention

  * BB actually has LESS or equivalent ads than TAG.  They've decided to
    try and make up the shortfall by selling smaller (down to 
    business-card sized) ads, something I violently objected to as the one 
    who has to do the actual layout on these, but nonetheless was passed 
    without even asking me!.  It speaks well of Kathy that she's been able
    to grab as much ad revenue for our upstart little club as the revered 
    ACA... of course, Chuck the ACA ad guy says "plants are up-and-coming,
    so more advertisers are interested".

  * I think that, like the AGA, some ACA conventions have been very 
    succesful, and others have lost money or broken even.  I don't think 
    this year's brought in a lot of money, but it did bring in a lot of 
    members.

> I assume BB is
> their bigest expense. If so, this suggests that ACA membership and ad
> revenue has not be sufficient. 

I would guess that it's not completely sufficient, but it's right on the
edge.  I think they've got some other expenses than the BB, but like us,
the magazine remains the biggest single expense.  They pay more for their
website and online store, where we get that for almost nothing.

> If you guys have not already done so, would
> it be helpful to compare BB costs and revenue to those for TAG? Also, if
> ACA has already analyzed the number of memberships needed to supplement a
> particular level of BB advertising, cost of publication etc, that would be
> useful. This of course relates to the higher unit costs to produce the 900
> magazines vs 1300. 

Well, I am not privvy to most of that information, but when I get it I try 
to forward useful things here.  For instance, I did get the updates on 
printer costs a few months ago.  It's all pretty similar to what we have 
found here.  It makes no sense to print less than 1000, and numbers over 
1000 are very cheap.

> Several years ago, I had conversations with Herlong
> along those line, but I suspect that this information has been updated . I
> seem to remember Dave telling me that ACA tried to keep their membership
> over 1000. What is it today?  I havent seen a roster in years.

Herlong is one to talk, of course.  He drove the printer costs up above
$7500 an issue, so they MUST have been bleeding.  When we took over from
him in 2001, we cut printing in half.

I think we should have a goal for this year of getting membership above
1000.  The breakdown for the last four issues of TAG are as follows: 862,
776, 841, and 835 (including comps but not multiple copies).  So hovering
around the low 800's, but really not enough data points to call "stable".  
The 776 number was after a flush-out of Jack's old database where we'd
been sending people free stuff on expired memberships.  The last two 
numbers are truly representative of real, active membership with no free 
tail issues.

  - Erik

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "incorp".