No double dipping at all. There are, largely, 3 distinct direct costs in the production and distribution of the magazine.
1. editorial to print or electronic format
2. printing a physical magazine
3. distribution.
my understanding is that the advertising only covers the first cost and should be more or less the same whether printed or e-published.
The contribution from RAA paid for, and now just the subscribers pays for the latter 2 costs, which are distinct from the editorial costs.
The sad thing from this, whole shift away from a print magazine, and effective sub increase, is that there has been no attempt to better allocated the massive increase in costs, which has occurred outside the magazine, to those who benefit from the cost increase. If it was because of the CASA Audit then it would appear that that cost should be charged against Technical which would indicated that the fee increase should have been paid by owners or a subset of owners rather than pilots. I will certainly maintain an interest in how RAA allocates costs against programs.
Simply, the cost of the magazine did not cause the deficit, and rundown in reserves. The deficit was caused by other, well known, quantifiable and avoidable factors.