Time magazine makes me an offer I can refuse

[Wiregrass Willie]

I've been subscribed to Time Magazine off and on since I was in high school. Today I got a letter from them telling me my subscription was soon to expire and offering me a chance to renew.

That seems pretty much par for the course but I was mildly shocked at the offer. Unlike years gone by when I was quoted a certain subscription for a certain price, this time they want me to undertake certain financial responsibilities that the company seems to have decided to pass on to us consumers. Why not, it works on the internet ?

Here is their offer ----

A 56 week subscription for $15.00. That's really not bad, is it ? But then came the shocker ! That is $15 -- PLUS --- $4.95 "shipping and handling" ! How damn much handling do they have to do to one little magazine ?

No, I won't buy. Had they demanded $19.95, I would not have hesitated to send them my check. But I am so tired of these Corporate types trying to slip one by me -- and pretending that S&H is *my* responsibility apart from the subscription. It has finally has gotten on my nerves. I shall drop Time and read more on the internet.

[youngdem]

1. You are better off without it...It's a right wing picture book these days

and Newsweek isn't much better.

[Make7]

2. Your lack of gratitude is astounding.

After they made you Person of the Year...



... you want to squabble over over $4.95? Surely being named Person of the Year is worth five bucks.

- Make7

[TahitiNut]

3. It's an insight to their political mentality, imho.

By far, a magazine's greatest revenues come from advertisers. Indeed, the primary reason they even charge the reader is so the advertisers can believe the magazine isn't thrown out. The pretense that the costs are born by the reader are sheer hype. Further, the CONTENT of the magazine is designed to appeal to a demographic - for marketing/advertising purposes primarily! In fact, it's an obvious political ploy to propagandize to the electorate in the matter of highly favorable rates paid by such large publishers as Time-Life and the more onerous rates charged to smaller publishers in the most recent postal rate hikes.

The most recent postal rates reflect an ever-increasing bias toward big business ... and it ALL cascades across to the advertisers (other big businesses).

By creating the FALSE impression that you, the reader, pay for "postage and handling" they create the misapprehension that YOU benefit from their postal rates. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

[aquart]

4. Aren't they getting some kind of bulk mail preference from the USPO

that's gravy to them and cutthroat to the small mags?

[TahitiNut]

5. Yep.

That's what I referred to in my last sentence of the first paragraph.

The mere fact that the bulk of the post office's work is commercial material granted below-cost rates is a long-time reality. The most recent rate changes went even further and granted the lowest rates to the largest users/abusers. It's just more corporate welfare.

[Wiregrass Willie]

7. But how much do ads cost us ?

By far, a magazine's greatest revenues come from advertisers.

In this weeks magazine, I count a total of 76 pages. (didn't there use to be about 100 ?) That includes both front and back covers. Out of those 76, there are 32 which are full page ads.

The way I see -- I should get the subscription free and they should pay me $19.95 a year just to read those ads.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to find out just how much the advertising industry in this country contributes to inflation ? (I figure it's all inflationary because it doesn't produce anything) I mean as a part of the GDP. Think of everybody that makes a dollar off the production of ads. Writers, producers, actors, etc. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking all those ads we see on TV and the internet are free. They aren't. We pay for them all indirectly. I am curious just how MUCH we pay.

[TahitiNut]

8. When YOU buy a subscription, THEY get a raise in advertising rates.

The ad rates reflect the circulation - with an emphasis on subscribers. So the magazine gets to raise their advertising rates when more people subscribe. Again, the reason they charge the readers with a subscription rate and a newsstand rate is because the advertisers require the assurance that people aren't treating the magazine as a 'throw-away' like some of the crap that's tossed on your porch.

It's really quite a fascinating business model. Once upon a time, local TV stations were 'throw-way' and the advertisers were limited by FCC rules to the amount of time they could purchase in any 30 minute period. That's why Nielseon Ratings even started - as an attempt to measure how many were actually watching (i.e. reading the throw-away). Even with that busiiness model, stations fell all over themselves to get permission to increase their broadcast coverage - usually at great expense to themselves - so they could claim a higher audience and charge higher advertising rates.

Then came cable/satellite and they adopted the subscriber model of publishing ... getting the viewer/reader to pay and, thereby, actually increase the advertising rates. (Again, people who pay to get the publication/station are more likely to read/view it.)


Fo a long time, the first thing I did with any magazine, often right at the newsstand, was rip out all the full-leaf advertising and throw it away on the spot. I didn't see any purpose in wasting my own energy even carrying their advertising away from the newsstand.

[Boojatta]

6. Maybe they have a distribution location near your home.

You could pay them $15.00 for a subscription card and show your card when periodically picking up the magazine yourself at the distribution location.

New marketing angle: why buy a dog when you can buy a subscription card and get just as much exercise walking to the distribution center as you would get walking a dog? Added benefit: the magazine doesn't need to be fed or visit the vet.

[WI_DEM]

9. hold out--if you don't renew at that price they'll eventually offer you something even better.