Flex Not for Sale?

[Chick]

What is your source, Insider?

I found it!! His source was:

www.madeupstatistics.com

[240 is Back]

I found it!! His source was:

www.madeupstatistics.com

What a great find!

They say there's a 0% chance that Don Long will do the 2006 Atlantic City Pro.

[240 is Back]

That's true to a point but if I see something half way decent in a mag I will buy it in a heartbeat. However, I haven't seen anything half way decent in a bodybuilding mag in a long, long time and thus haven't bought anything. Like Matt C said, I would rather look at the photos & articles in a mag than see them on a computer screen. I just looked at the latest musclemag international and they had their Olympia wrap. There was practically no photos & the write up was shite, so I didn't buy it. Bottom line, it's the same as people who misguidedly believe that the internet has killed CD sales. If the content is good, real fans will go and buy the product regardless .

SERGIO!!!!

yeah... some of the newer mags might have a chance.  The new muscle magazine, www.kagedMuscle.com, they focus a lot upon the training/nutrition/other aspects of the sport.  Articles and training sessions with Dorian Yates and Lenda Murray... kinda geared toward people who respect the sport's hardworking legends, not starry-eyed kids who wanna be Mr Olympia.

[scribbler]

if you want Real numbers on ad sales revenue and pages, go here
http://www.magazine.org/Advertising_and_PIB/PIB_Revenue_and_Pages/Revenue___Pages_by_Magazine_Titles__YTD_/19917.cfm
which is public information

you can't believe everything IndustryInsider says, you'll notice that M&F actually has the highest growth of the entire Fitness/Bodybuilding category at 24% revenue growth and 17% page growth respectively for Jan-Nov 2006 vs 2005...not exactly in trouble. I wonder what magazine Insider has an affiliation with? since the majority of their posts are blatant made up bashes on Weider titles, or very selective reworked numbers (one specific month where there may be a decrease without the whole picture showing very drastic increases).

Seems like a personal agenda to trash our titles in the majority of his/her posts, it's getting pretty old when you chime in every few months to post useless numbers.
Flex info isn't on the site, but M&F should be enough to show that the #'s quoted are taken out of context without an overall industry evaluation as well.

Now is this really something you need to rehash every few months Insider?...people will buy whichever magazine they feel like without any of this crap.

C

[Chick]

Amazing...looks like a 17% INCREASE.

Just as I stated...this "insider" gets his numbers from Uranus.

[thisiskeith12]

Contrary to what some may think, bodybuilding is getting more popular within the 18-50 yr age group.

[IndustryInsider]

Bob,

First you try to cover up and then you blatantly lie?  Wow.  Well for everyone’s edification, including Scribblers’, first I did not mention M & F in my original post, my topic was regarding AMI and the slump that Flex magazine is in.  Go back to post 1 if you need a refresher.  Second, I have posted here before and whenever I do post something factual that I have learned, it is supported by the name of my source…Credible information from the most reliable resources.  To accuse me of doing otherwise is foolish Bob.  It is you who are here deceiving the members of the board with your false posts and accusations, not I. 

My sources for my original posts as requested.  You may now stick this in Uranus Bob.


http://i14.tinypic.com/497w6yr.jpg


http://i13.tinypic.com/2ujnqjn.jpg

[scribbler]

In your 2nd post you say that M&F is down 9.6% in ad pages...do you even remember what you post anymore?

What I have said is that it is meaningless to simply post any numbers without the context they are in...how the industry as a whole is doing, or how even magazines in general are doing. Also, if you are who I think you are, you would also know that circulation is not the only number that drives a magazines success...and in fact is not the main factor in some business models. You must also take into account the issues printed, newsstand sell through, ad pages, cost per page etc etc. Not to mention that the total circ number is still pretty impressive for this market.

The magazines are extremely profitable and that is why AMI is keeping them, and that won't change no matter what negative numbers you insist on propogating the boards with everytime you see your chance. I don't know what the goal of this is, but the fact that you posted on almost every message board out there means someone must be pretty desperate to make FLEX look bad...I wonder why that would be?

Like I said before, people will buy the magazine they choose to buy for themselves, this useless banter about things most people don't care about won't change that.

Let's let this crap go please...we've been through it all before-if you want to attack us, at least come up with something original. But it would be great if you would just stop all together...or at least post under your real name so people can see how petty you are.

C

PS and yes, I am scribbler on here, but I don't try to hide who I am, and I won't make negative comments about the other mags on any of the boards whether they are warranted or not

[Chick]

If you really want som fair comparison...lets see the numbers of the other magazines in the industry.

Oh, that's right...none of the other mags choose to have their numbers audited...how convieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nient.

[240 is Back]

If you really want som fair comparison...lets see the numbers of the other magazines in the industry.

Oh, that's right...none of the other mags choose to have their numbers audited...how convieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nient.

When you said "Amazing...looks like a 17% INCREASE." - were you talking about Flex vs. Flex, or Flex vs. MD?

Cause if you meant Flex (then) vs. Flex (now), the bashing of MD's sales as a defense for your statement is called a 'red herring'.  You deflect the task of backing up your claims against Insider's newspaper scans by making an attack which has nothing to with the conversation.


I have no dog in this fight, I just hate it when someone abuses a sexy number...

[scribbler]

When you said "Amazing...looks like a 17% INCREASE." - were you talking about Flex vs. Flex, or Flex vs. MD?

Cause if you meant Flex (then) vs. Flex (now), the bashing of MD's sales as a defense for your statement is called a 'red herring'.  You deflect the task of backing up your claims against Insider's newspaper scans by making an attack which has nothing to with the conversation.


I have no dog in this fight, I just hate it when someone abuses a sexy number...

the 17% was M&F's increase in ad pages over the last year

nothing to do with FLEX...noone was deflecting anything-we don't mention the other mags sales

C

[240 is Back]

nothing to do with FLEX...noone was deflecting anything-we don't mention the other mags sales

Ah, okay.  But when people on your team say things like this, it looks more like an attack on MD than a trumpeted announcement of Flex's successes.  IMO, mentioning/insulting competitors only legitimizes them as a threat. 


If you really want som fair comparison...lets see the numbers of the other magazines in the industry.

Oh, that's right...none of the other mags choose to have their numbers audited...how convieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nient.

[Adam Empire]

If you really want som fair comparison...lets see the numbers of the other magazines in the industry.

Oh, that's right...none of the other mags choose to have their numbers audited...how convieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee nient.

The point is that Flex is not for sale according to this report.  Which is the opposite of what you stated earlier in this thread.  MD is not the topic here.

[scribbler]

The point is that Flex is not for sale according to this report.  Which is the opposite of what you stated earlier in this thread.  MD is not the topic here.

Bob didn't even mention any specific titles of other mags here, or said that FLEX was or wasn't for sale.
Let's not turn this into another FLEX vs MD thread.

He stated that the reason that FLEX and M&F aren't for sale anymore is that it IS profitable and not the opposite that was stated as the reason.

He was just making a point that it is easier to target our magazines as they are publicly audited each month to provide our advertisers with current circ numbers, unlike some of the other magazines in the category. This isn't to change the subject or point out other magazines, it is simply a statement of fact. My previous post explained how numbers can be twisted to give a different view when taken out of context with all of the facts.

Aside from all of that, I don't understand why these random numbers are continuosly quoted by IndustryInsider...would any of you stop buying a magazine because it sold a few less issues then the year before?

probably not-you would stop buying a magazines if you felt that it wasn't what you wanted anymore, so this negative campaign by II every few months seems pretty futile

BTW from your post in March of this year for the last half of 2005, you state that Flex newstand sales were 

"Single Copies (%) (Newsstand Sales)
70,529 (-7.3%) 
This is not a sign of poor customer service, producing a withering product editorially is most likely the culprit for the decline in sales here."

with a nice little unbiased comment thrown in there...however, in this thread you now state that Flex's newsstand sales are

"Single copy Sales (Newsstand) – 72,415  Down 15.4% from the prior year."

Correct me if I'm wrong...but last I checked 72,415 was a BIGGER number than 70,529 and certainly not 15.4% less...it is in fact 3% higher...and that is from your own posts over the last year.

Again, why don't you post under your real name and stop with this negative PR campaign...
like it or not, FLEX is going to continue to try and show our sport/industry in a positive light so that maybe we can bring in some new people and generate new interest overall.

C

[240 is Back]

scribbs,

good analysis and breakdown.

I also agree that this "Insider" stuff gets lamer by the week.  people are so afraid of pissing off those in the industry that they never put their credibility on the line to really accomplish anything.  Insider, you lack consistency and credibility by remaining anonymous.  Get your stars already, and your past accomplishments will force those aligned with you to take a position or remain quiet, the silence showing they don't disagree.

Come on, this is Message Board PsyOps 101 here...