RAA & Survey Monkey

[kasper]

As presented earlier in this topic,

 

presently costs $72 K to produce the content and run online 

 

then $140K per year for the paper copies going to 1750 members

 

Id expect ways to reduce cost of paper has been investigated, everyone wants to keep it going.

 

Printers have minimum run costs.

 

So...

 

If there are 10,000 members

 

And we sell 1750 annual subscriptions to the paper version paying an average of $44pa

 

And it costs $72k to generate content and put into electronic form

 

And it costs an additional $140k to print and post the paper versions

 

Then

 

Members are paying $7.20 per year from membership fees to get a "digital magazine" that is NOT designed as digital mag but is instead an electronic form of a print mag (not the same thing at all) 

 

Members are paying $6.30 per year from membership fees to not get a paper magazine

 

In total each member is paying $13.50 towards the magazine

 

If this is correct then around 10% of the  member fee $131 is being used to provide each member with a digital magazine that is not designed to be a digital magazine!

 

I use the non-flying member fee as the last we knew the difference between the two was supposed to be insurance costs

 

If we are now at a point where we need to address the subsidy to the paper mag then I think its time to:

 

1. go back to printed paper for all and acknowledge that this is expensive and either number of mags per year must reduce or costs in membership goes up (or maybe both - I do not know the break even and cost steps that exist fro print and post on this area) ; or

 

2. we go to digital ONLY and change the production and layout to be a true digital only publication; or

 

3. abandon a 'magazine' and invest in a digital stories and information repository with a "publication" front end so people could access the full history of content as a database of documents but still have a 'latest months' content update

 

In my iopinion we cannot keep going as we are.

 

But I did not get any survey monkey link so I am not someone RAAus consider they need information from.

 

 

[Downunder]

Id expect ways to reduce cost of paper has been investigated, everyone wants to keep it going.

 

With only 1750 coppies being sold, I think you need to review "everyone".

 

If everyone wanted the paper mag there would be 10 000 sales and we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

 

[Downunder]

[kgwilson]

 

And it costs $72k to generate content and put into electronic form

 

No that $72k is the revenue from subscribing members

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes that's right, I read it incorrectly

 

$144K is the net cost to members for the magazine in both formats

 

Still a lot of members money to subsidise a few

 

 

[facthunter]

 I still don't get the "subsidise a few" bit in your last line.  It can be more than halved quite simply. It's the run  you pay for  and if you halve the number of runs you halve the total cost. . Since it doesn't have to be marketed publicly the paper and  inking/ laser? can be cheaper and if you reduce the number there MUST be savings available for smaller  numbers with less "Mainstream" Copiers.. If there's a will, I'm sure there is some way. As I keep saying I am in various clubs that have NO problem doing what  we are talking about. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

I have no problem, so long as those who need paper copies pay for it all, printing staff, postage etc

 

Right now they don't.

 

 

[facthunter]

 If this is the biggest of your problems you are going well. They were arguing about it the time I went as Ian Bakers proxy. and that's not yesterday. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

" I'm pretty sure they have an "internal use" copier. "

 

Then again so have lots of the members. When making a downloadable copy Can ISO be used, as Microsoft & others have used,?.

 

Will any mag be available to "guests" & the common public, Or will it be restricted to Paying members only.

 

(I couldn't access it once out of the RAA,(even at the newsagent's.))

 

spacesailor

 

 

[danny_galaga]

I see the Gliding Federation of Australia still has a printed magazine

 

 

[NT5224]

Personally, I'd like to see the hardcopy format magazine continue, even if the cost rises a little.  And  if RAA move away from a hardcopy magazine,  would the same arguments apply  to the various glossy safety brochures and advisory materials we receive?

 

Back in the AUF days,  our magazine felt rough and ready, with a distinctly amateurish feel to it. It may not have been the glossy product that Sport pilot evolved into (don't get me wrong, I loved the direction the magazine was going in!), but it was just as well thumbed in the flying club tea rooms. Could the magazine  be produced more cheaply, if we accepted that we didn't need  such high quality production values? Its essentially a club newsletter.    

 

For a couple of years I've also subscribed to 'Australian Flying', which I think has been an excellent publication.... Perhaps Sports Pilot has been trying too hard to compete with other publications which have much broader subscription bases?

 

Cheers

 

Alan

 

 

[turboplanner]

So...

 

If there are 10,000 members

 

And we sell 1750 annual subscriptions to the paper version paying an average of $44pa

 

And it costs $72k to generate content and put into electronic form

 

And it costs an additional $140k to print and post the paper versions

 

Then

 

Members are paying $7.20 per year from membership fees to get a "digital magazine" that is NOT designed as digital mag but is instead an electronic form of a print mag (not the same thing at all) 

 

Members are paying $6.30 per year from membership fees to not get a paper magazine

 

In total each member is paying $13.50 towards the magazine

 

If this is correct then around 10% of the  member fee $131 is being used to provide each member with a digital magazine that is not designed to be a digital magazine!

 

I use the non-flying member fee as the last we knew the difference between the two was supposed to be insurance costs

 

If we are now at a point where we need to address the subsidy to the paper mag then I think its time to:

 

1. go back to printed paper for all and acknowledge that this is expensive and either number of mags per year must reduce or costs in membership goes up (or maybe both - I do not know the break even and cost steps that exist fro print and post on this area) ; or

 

2. we go to digital ONLY and change the production and layout to be a true digital only publication; or

 

3. abandon a 'magazine' and invest in a digital stories and information repository with a "publication" front end so people could access the full history of content as a database of documents but still have a 'latest months' content update

 

In my iopinion we cannot keep going as we are.

 

But I did not get any survey monkey link so I am not someone RAAus consider they need information from.

 

The purpose of an Association magazine is to reach outside the current membership and bring in new members (= lowers cost, creates more buyers of the Associations product (i.e. aviation products).  The income should exceed the cost albeit that income is going to suppliers, airfields, function organisers etc. but that cash flow oils the gears that make the Association run better.

 

With electronic publishing the lead time is cut by a month or more, so there's an opportunity for the Association to publish timely news reports, upcoming events etc and "get into" their community. There will always be some members who think the "magazine" is just for them to read about their Association, and in particular in paper format, but preaching to the converted is not what the Association should be doing, converting new members instead leads to a very healthy and cashed up Association. There are pplenty of excellent sites such as this one to catch up on events and trends and daily aviation life.

 

At least with this magazine, we've had several years to see the cost impacts, quality and quantity of information coming from RAA and make a pretty good judgement.

 

 

[Hargraves]

I did the obviously flawed and very biased trick survey and included a footnote on why that question was not applicable as a question but i do realise its directed to empire building, self intrest jobs for the boys directors who could,nt care less for what the members want. Cheers  Hargraves

 

 

[Downunder]

I wonder if Sport Pilot magazine actually advertised itself?

 

In a 4x4 magazine for example.

 

I've always believed the RAA and aviation in general have always "preached to the converted" rather than seeking members in other sports and hobbies.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" but preaching to the converted is not what the Association should be doing, converting" new members instead leads to a very healthy and cashed up   Association."

 

Also all the exmember's who like to remoniss.

 

spacesailor