Heya John,

I pointed out the declining subscriptions over a year ago and was ignored :-)

Anyway, I think that there are a lot of factors going into this.

First off, is this limited to FPA or are other Advisor publications in decline? Can you get stats? IMHO, Advisor is kind of a joke when it comes to quality, professionally published magazines. They can't hold FTP's jockstrap.

Secondly, the VFP community is "what can you do for me NOW!". I think the UT, the newsgroups, and other web-centric resources are pulling people away from the print media as Christof pointed out. Perhaps VBPJ thrives because they have found the proper balance of articles and tie in to DevX.

Finally, I would stridently NOT tie this decline to a decline in VFP popularity. As I pointed out in point #2, the developer community is becoming more sophisticated and web-wise and more efforts may be going there. The message count and member count for the UT have been ascending. The VFP NGs are getting heavier and heavier traffic.

>Once a year, magazines are required to issue and publish their statement of ownership. This has data regarding total number of copies produced a month vs. what is distributed and paid for.
>
>I decided to take a trip down memory lane since I have most of FPA copies on file..
>
>As of 1/2000, paid subscriptions were 8,155
>As of 1/1999, paid subscriptions were 9,085 - a decline of 10.2 %
>
>As of 1/1997, paid subscriptions were 10,823, a decline of 24.7%
>As of 1/1996, paid subscriptions were 21,139, a decline of 61.4%
>
>I am missing some years, but still, the trend is quite apparent. If you are an advertiser, you should be shocked.
>
>One interesting number dealt with the total run. In January, 1996, the average run was 25,238. Last year, the average run was 12,165 - a decline of 51.8%. The average paid subscription per month as of January 1996 was 16,174. As of January, 2000, the average monthly paid subscription was 8,401. That is a decline of about 48%.
>
>So, what can we conclude...
>
>From 1995 - 1999, FPA cut it's production run by about 50%. Why? Because paid subscriptions and distribution were down by about 50%
>
>Some other interesting info...
>
>The January 1996 cover was 76 pages long with about 40 total pages of advertising. That represents about 53% technical content. 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.
>
>Granted, for this part of the analysis, I am only using 2 data points. Still, I think the average will hold up.
>
>The fact remains, that less technical content is in the magazine, and the subscription/run base is 50% of what it was 5 years ago.
>
>What a trend to be proud of!! < s >......
>
>As always, I look forward to your thoughts!!