CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] what else is lost

To: CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] what else is lost
From: Gerry Treas K8GT <k8gt@mi.rr.com>
Reply-to: k8gt@arrl.net
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:49:50 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
All advertising rates are down. Having retired from 50 years in Radio and Television, I've seen Television advertising rates drop to a fifth or less, compared to the "Golden Years" of the late '70s through the '90s. Competition from all the burgeoning cable channels, diluted the amount of advertising dollars available.

Print magazines have also suffered due to internet advertising. The cost of paper and publishing has gone up. CQ made a mistake trying to take on publishing CQ VHF and Popular Communications as well as CQ magazine. They've now dropped print publishing CQ VHF and Popular Communications and folded those into CQ online now called CQ+.

Those that would like to see a business fold, especially when confronted by circumstances way beyond their control, simply do not understand the far reaching consequences to the communities and support businesses and the economies that are affected, when all that they may need is a helping hand.

I have lived in southeast Michigan, mainly the Metro Detroit area, all my life. Where we'd be now if the automobile companies had been allowed to go belly up, is hard to contemplate. The distruction of the many support businesses, families and communities would have been catastrophic. Now we have the Big Three doing well and contributing to the local and state economies. Thanks to a relatively short loan from the government, the repayment which has garnered the government a decent return on investment, helping the U.S. treasury.

Be careful, the far reaching effects may be much worse than you imagine.

So I support CQ magazine as another voice to be heard, contributing to the health of Ham Radio.

All this IMHO.

73, Gerry, K8GT


On 2/2/2014 11:58 AM, Tom Osborne wrote:

Charly, why are you so quick todismiss the idea of a web-based,
advertiser-supported magazine?  It requires more than QST's images of
the paper magazine, but as someone suggested a few weeks ago, there
*are* successful hobby magazines on the web.  Of course, some people
will always seek out "echo chambers" that reinforce their own views, but
quality still has a chance.

73, Pete N4ZR

Do these magazines actually make money from subscriptions or from the advertising revenue? Maybe fewer vendors are advertising in CQ. I know that QST is about half ad's now. 73
Tom W7WHY

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>