Wither CGOnline?

[milo]

Is it just me or has Computer Games Online just about gone tits up? They haven't changed the front page news in weeks, and it took them several days just to paste the table of contents from the paper mag onto the please-oh-please-subscribe page. I'd hate to see it go, it's always been one of my favorite online game sites...

[Mark Asher]

I suspect it's transitioning from an editorial site into an advertisement for the magazine.

The parent company, theglobe.com, is in dire straights. As of their March 31, 2002 financial statement, they had about $2.4 million in ready assets but were losing money each quarter -- I think that quarter they lost about $0.7 mil.

However, they had an impending hit of $625,000 to pay to their outgoing CEO. That would drop them to about $1.8 mil, and if they are still losing money, they may very well be under $1 mil in ready assets right now. My guess is they're cost-cutting, and they may have cut the website as part of that process. (In fact, theglobe.com's online ad revenue for the 1st quarter 2001 was $1.3 mil, but the online ad revenue for 1st quarter 2002 was...$0.00! Yeah, Internet advertising's healthy alright.)

The mag's up for sale, but this is not a good time to sell a magazine with the current ad slump.

Of course, there's probably no better time to buy a magazine if you want to get one cheap.

[Sean Tudor]

I suspect it's transitioning from an editorial site into an advertisement for the magazine.

Wasn't there someone from CGonline still posting in QT3 ? Or have they been sacked too ?

[Jason Cross]

There is nobody "from CGOnline." There is only the magazine, and CGOnline is just the website for the magazine.

It only contains content that ran in the magazine in previous months.

And yes, the idea is that we're transitioning away from that into a sell-sheet for the magazine, essentially. There's just no justification for giving away what we intend to sell, even if it is off the shelves by the time it goes up. It's certainly not generating enough sales to pay for the bandwidth the site uses, so why do it?

And we need to kill the perception that CGOnline is an editorial entity in its own right and not just a magazine archive, which this move will certainly accomplish.

I'm sorry if you like the site and are sorry to see it go, but the solution is to buy the magazine and get all the SAME EXACT STUFF a month or more earlier (plug plug).

(oh, and it hasn't all been finalized yet, so don't freak out if none of this happens just yet. And the current thinking is that the forums would remain.)

[Sean Tudor]

I haven't seen a Computer Games magazine on the shelves here for over 12 months. The same goes for Computer Gaming World.

But there is a never ending supply of PC Gamer.

[Murph]

CGM is really hard to find in this area, too. In fact, it may be next to impossible to get one if you don't have a subscription.

[copeknight]

I can find CGM, oddly, a little easier than CGW, but neither has the proliferation on the newsstands here that PCG does.

Sadly, though, I think most of us that do care about journalistic integrity do subscribe to CGM. PCG, though, caters to, er, the lowest common denominator. I find enough I like in it each month to keep me reading, but a lot of it makes me cringe.

I'm sure they've been brought up before, but this piqued my curiosity, so I looked up (last year's) average circulation figures, and I admit they surprised me.

PC Gamer:
Mail: 259,870; Newsstand: 104,742; Total (incl. non-paid): 366,103

CGW:
Mail: 274,620; Newsstand: 59.733; Total: 340,568

CGM:
Mail: 360,857; Newsstand: 30,198; Total: 393.461


So are CGM's numbers inflated with subscriptions given with Chips & Bits orders?

[Mark Asher]

PCG has always been the leader in newstand sales from what I've been told. They make a lot of money from those sales, which in this advertising climate helps. Advertisers like newstand sales too.

CGM's numbers have seemed a bit odd to some since they've risen incredibly fast over the last few years, but they're audited, so there's an independant body confirming them.

In the end what's most important is the advertising. From what I've heard, and this is just hearsay stuff, CGM has the more trouble competing for ads and getting the kind of prices the other magazines get, but no one's doing great with advertising right now.

According to their most recent SEC filing, here's theglobe.com's advertising revenue from the first quarter this year -- $667,843. That has to be almost entirely CGM ad sales, I'd guess. That's $220,000 per month, basically. (In fact in the last issue it appeard they have about 22 pages of paid advertising, which if they're getting $10,000 per page, would be $220,000.)

If CGM is printing 393,000 copies of the magazine each month according to those circulation figures, you have to wonder if they're even profitable at this point? They do have newstand and subscription revenue, but that's a lot of copies to print and deliver, and they have other expenses such as salaries and office space, etc.

[JT]

Does CGM really get $10,000 a page?

[Mark Asher]

I don't know. I've heard that's the price that the other mags ask. I'd assume that's what CGM goes for, but my guess is they have to be a bit more flexible in their pricing.

[Tyjenks]

For what it is worth, CGM is the one magazine I have consistently subscribed to since I began my PC gaming. CGOnline was once a wonderful site, but I totally understand the problems in keeping it going and the actual need (or lack there of) for it since internet ad revenues have bottomed out.

OOooohhh! I have a terrific idea. I am hereby starting a rally cry for a secret society, members-only CGOnline Complete Plus so we can pay $9.95/mo. to read the forums and the content I can gain at one thousand other sites. :wink:

[Ben Sones]

So are CGM's numbers inflated with subscriptions given with Chips & Bits orders?

No, those can't be included in audit figures. Or rather, they can, but they can't be included with "paid circulation." CGM has no problems when it comes to subscription circulation; the problem is newsstand sales. Advertisers give more weight to newsstand sales (for some reason--I've never really understood that), and PCG beats both of the other mags in that category by a very wide margin. Circulation does not equal profits, because newsstand and subscription prices are designed to cover production and not much more. Ads equal profits, and ideally more circulation gets more ads, but in reality it's a lot more complicated than that.

[DennyA]

Ben's right about it being more complicated than that. Newsstand circulation is costly to obtain, for instance. In this industry, an average magazine sells about 3 per 10 copies put on the newsstand. (Nobody tell Greenpeace!) The rest are pulped. A 50% sellthrough on an issue is considered an amazing success.

I don't know if this is still true, since I'm now just a lowly freelancer on the computer gaming side of the magazine biz, but when I was more directly involved, one reason PCG had higher newsstand sales was that they distributed a much higher number of magazines, into more outlets. (Which seems borne out by the comments here about which magazine is easiest to find.)

So when you're figuring out how many copies of each issue each magazine is printing, you should multiply the newsstand number by at least two, more likely three.

[rdarnese]

As far as the earlier statements go, yes they did layoff Bob Mayer the long time online editor for CGO.

[copeknight]

No, those can't be included in audit figures. Or rather, they can, but they can't be included with "paid circulation." CGM has no problems when it comes to subscription circulation; the problem is newsstand sales. Advertisers give more weight to newsstand sales (for some reason--I've never really understood that),

I don't understand that either; I was always under the impression that advertisers wanted subscribers because they could count on a core base of readers and could research more stable demographics from subscribers than causal newsstand buyers.

But about the Chips & Bits, in the fine print at the bottom of C&B ads, it says $10 is allocated for a subscription to CGM. Wouldn't that be considered paid? I don't know; it just seems odd to me.

Carl

[Anonymous]

As far as the earlier statements go, yes they did layoff Bob Mayer the long time online editor for CGO.

According to Jason Cross, there is no CGO. So Bob Mayer has been fired from Computer Games Magazine?

[Mark Asher]

As I understand it, Bob's position was cut. I'm sure it was for financial reasons.

It's too bad. Bob's a good guy.

[Desslock]

>But about the Chips & Bits, in the fine print at the bottom of C&B ads, it says $10 is allocated for a subscription to CGM. Wouldn't that be considered paid?

Yes, which is why CGM's number have risen so substantially over the past three years. Great mag though, and I hope it pulls through, at least to keep the other characters honest.

[Anonymous]

CGM also turned out to be a comp. subscription source for those who subscribed to various magazines that died in various ways (OGR/C&NP, The General, and a few others).

--- Alan

[Anonymous]

Yes, which is why CGM's number have risen so substantially over the past three years. Great mag though, and I hope it pulls through, at least to keep the other characters honest.

You vastly overestimate the number of sales and size of Chips & Bits to think that's that reason the circulation has gone up. Most of their customers are repeats, some ridiculously high percentage, and you don't get an infinite number of simultaneous subscriptions.

Aside from the obvious ways (marketing, word of mouth, increased newsstand distribution, whatever), the main way magazines build circulation quickly is to buy it from agents. Sometimes you end up with good readers, some of the time you end up with people saying, "What the hell is this?"

There were other things too: We get subs we get from various school programs, we were in Publisher's Clearing House for a couple of years, we bought Incite's PC magazine list when it went belly-up, we have cards in various game boxes, we used to sell calendars and buyer's guides with subs, we were selling versions localized in Italian and Greek (which was truly weird), blah blah blah.

[Jason Cross]

According to Jason Cross, there is no CGO. So Bob Mayer has been fired from Computer Games Magazine?

Correct. For the last year or so, Bob's title was "Managing Editor," and the website had virtually no exclusive content at all. It was only articles that also appeared in the print magazine - delayed a month so that the print issue would be off the newsstands by the time it went online where people could get it free.

As Mark said, Bob wasn't "fired" (which implies it was his fault). We were all sorry to see him go, but we had to reduce a certain number of staff positions. Bob IS a good guy, and letting him go was in no way related to the quality of his work.

This is heresay on my part, but it's my understanding this has happened in several other mags/publishers as well. I've heard that Vederman is pulling double duty as the CD editor for PC Gamer and Maximum PC now. Again, that's just scuttlebutt.

[Jason Cross]

Yes, which is why CGM's number have risen so substantially over the past three years. Great mag though, and I hope it pulls through, at least to keep the other characters honest.

Last I checked, this amounts to like 10,000 out of the entire paid circulation. I don't have the audit in front of me, but it's on there in the fine print on the last page.

It's responsible for maybe 2-3% of the total "paid circulation" at best.

And for what it's worth, the Chips thing has been going on since long before the spike in circulation, so it can hardly be responsible for it.

[wumpus]

As Mark said, Bob wasn't "fired" (which implies it was his fault). We were all sorry to see him go, but we had to reduce a certain number of staff positions. Bob IS a good guy, and letting him go was in no way related to the quality of his work.

That sucks. Bob's the man. Figuratively speaking.

[Desslock]

>Last I checked, this amounts to like 10,000 out of the entire paid circulation. I don't have the audit in front of me, but it's on there in the fine print on the last page

Sorry, I was just referring to it as an example of one of the many things CGM (which by no means is the only one) has done over the past several years to drastically alter its subscription base (buying old lists, etc., as Steve detailed).

The goal, of course, was to try to convince advertisers of the increased value in advertising, but if anything, it's had the opposite effect by devaluing advertising and causing potential advertisers to question the numbers. That's why newstand sales are so much more valued, since they're perceived to be "cleaner", and less easy to manipulate -- not really fair to mags like CGM and CGW that have sizable, long-term subscriber bases. But I think the Globe's circulation manipulation hurt the industry.

[Anonymous]

But I think the Globe's circulation manipulation hurt the industry.

It hurt the industry? Ah c'mon, we have almost zero impact on the industry. No one pays attention to us at all... well, I was almost on CNN the other night, but anyway, how did we screw anything up for anyone else?

All the magazines got into a pissing contest for circulation to combat the rise of websites. We were all afraid that's where all the ad money would go. In retrospect, that was a mistake, but it's one everyone made on their own independent of anyone else.

[Desslock]

>All the magazines got into a pissing contest for circulation to combat the rise of websites. We were all afraid that's where all the ad money would go.

That's all I'm saying. It was a short-sighted movie, but one that everyone essentially had to opt into to avoid having a circulation totally out of whack with direct competitors.

>In retrospect, that was a mistake, but it's one everyone made on their own independent of anyone else.

Whether they were just being reactive to their competitors or independently thought it was a good idea, it hurt the industry. You're closer to this stuff, so I'll defer to you on whether or not someone led the charge, but the Globe's 'bubble' IPO put it under additional scrutiny that may make its mistakes seem more prominent.

[Mark Asher]

"All the magazines got into a pissing contest for circulation to combat the rise of websites. We were all afraid that's where all the ad money would go. In retrospect, that was a mistake, but it's one everyone made on their own independent of anyone else."

No kidding that fear turned out to be wrong. I'm surprised any game companies advertise with the websites. Why pay for exposure when you can get developer diaries online, get screenshots posted, get your game previewed multiple times, etc. -- and have it all be available as long as the website is up?

Maybe Gamespot will be able to get more ads now that their old content will be locked? Maybe that was one of their considerations when they went to their new scheme?

[Anonymous]

>That's all I'm saying. It was a short-sighted movie, but one that everyone essentially had to opt into to avoid having a circulation totally out of whack with direct competitors.

Yeah, but it's hardly something we spearheaded. Blame PC Gamer for having the highest circ, because everyone was playing catchup to them.

it hurt the industry.

I just don't get that. What industry? The game industry? No, can't be that. The magazine industry? Regardless of the circ numbers, it'd be hurting today due to the slump.

You're closer to this stuff, so I'll defer to you on whether or not someone led the charge, but the Globe's 'bubble' IPO put it under additional scrutiny that may make its mistakes seem more prominent.

Well, by the time The Globe bought us, the bubble was already deflating. And our circ numbers had already grown well before they acquired us. We just publicized the numbers because we actually had someone in PR. And others actually paid attention at that point.

[Anonymous]

No kidding that fear turned out to be wrong. I'm surprised any game companies advertise with the websites. Why pay for exposure when you can get developer diaries online, get screenshots posted, get your game previewed multiple times, etc. -- and have it all be available as long as the website is up?

Yeah, I think I was saying that years ago during the height of the madness and everyone was making fun of me. Wish I had some of those conversations archived, heh... actually, they're probably on Usenet.

I'd never even think about spending a penny marketing online today. The whole "daily content model" was a mistake. When you have such high demands for content, you better hope you're attracting non-endemic advertising otherwise the companies don't need to advertise to get the word out about their title. They just give you some "exclusive" shots and boom, it's up, and it's better than any ad.

If more websites went to bi-monthly or weekly updating, and because of this were able to exercise more control about what's posted or not, they'd be more attractive to game advertisers--well, at least if those advertisers were me, which they're not--as there may be times when that ad is the only mention of some particular game on the site that update.

Er, that was an awful sentence. Editor!

[Mark Asher]

No kidding that fear turned out to be wrong. I'm surprised any game companies advertise with the websites. Why pay for exposure when you can get developer diaries online, get screenshots posted, get your game previewed multiple times, etc. -- and have it all be available as long as the website is up?

Yeah, I think I was saying that years ago during the height of the madness and everyone was making fun of me. Wish I had some of those conversations archived, heh... actually, they're probably on Usenet.

What the websites need to do, and what the magazines haven't been all that successful at either, is attract other advertisers besides game companies. Movies, tv shows, comic books, sci-fi books, fast food, snacks, consumer electronics, autos, etc. -- all the things that males 15-35 are interested in. I've seen some of them advertising in the mags and on the websites, but it seems sporadic. I guess a lot of them opt for mass market advertising like TV ads.