>Hi John,
>
>The subscription stuff was interesting, but I might be misreading this:
>
>>The January 1996 cover was 76 pages long with about 40 total pages of advertising. That represents about 53% technical content.
>
>Wouldn't that be non-technical.

Was that a jab on FPA??? Man, I thought I was brutal... Good one..

>
>>The January 2000 issue is 52 pages long with 21 pages of advertisements and non-technical info. That is a ratio of 50% dead on. So, while the page count has gone down, advertising ratio has picked up slightly.
>
>Thats about 40%

Yes, Yes, Yes, my math was off a bit...

>Either way, its well over FoxTalks 2ads/25pages (8%), and I'm getting your point.

You have to remember that FoxTalk cost a little over twice what FPA costs. So, in the case of FoxTalk, the magazine is more directly sustained via subscriptions. Which BTW, I think those paid subscription numbers are below 2,000. But, at $119 per year, that is over a quarter of a million dollars a year. I don't know what advertising costs. But, at just under 20K in revenues per month, and with so little advertising, and with a pathetically small subscription base, you wonder how FT survives....