Author Topic: TOUGH TIMES TO BE SELLING FLEX (Read 25071 times)

IndustryInsider · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:03:53 PM »

Quote from: mwbbuilder on July 19, 2006, 12:19:26 PM

All magazine subscriptions are down. It's the age of the internet. It has nothing to do with Flex, Pecker, Muscular Development competition, layout, or steroids.

Sports Illustrated, Time, Newsweek, ect...all way down.

The only way your magazine is up is if it was yet published 5 years ago.

End of story.

Interesting post. What sources can you show us to back up your claims? Without a credible source your post is nothing more than opinion. My information shows otherwise.

Undermind · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:10:02 PM »

Flex still outsells the others by a wide margin. MuscleMag is #2. Ironman and MD are tied for last. Though no other mags have the courage to be audited, the numbers are well known in the supp industry, and they're pretty pathetic for the other mags. As Ron knows and has posted here, the reason why Flex gets over 5 times more per ad page than MD and Ironman is because they outsell them by that much.

best · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:13:58 PM »

You are way off on your assumptions about how much Flex gets for Ad pages my friend. And if anyone is paying 5x more for an Ad in Flex over MD then they are being taken for a ride. Fact - You can get a page for $2000 in flex magazine. Do your homework and then fire your marketing guy for wasting your money and overpaying while everyone else is paying less.

sgt. d · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:15:43 PM »

Quote from: ribonucleic on July 19, 2006, 12:45:27 PM

I hear you, brother.

If they'd had the Internet in the early 80s, I would never have left the house.

monster not being able to get a woman

IceCold · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:24:23 PM »

Quote from: mwbbuilder on July 19, 2006, 12:19:26 PM

All magazine subscriptions are down. It's the age of the internet. It has nothing to do with Flex, Pecker, Muscular Development competition, layout, or steroids.

Sports Illustrated, Time, Newsweek, ect...all way down.

The only way your magazine is up is if it was yet published 5 years ago.

End of story.

very good point.

Undermind · « **Reply #30 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:29:12 PM »

Quote from: best on July 19, 2006, 03:13:58 PM

And if anyone is paying 5x more for an Ad in Flex over MD then they are being taken for a ride.

It's the other way around, my friend. Flex is audited, MD isn't. True, ad numbers don't always equal sales (mags get whatever they can get), but if you believe MD hype that they're "closing the gap" you're being taken for a ride. As Ron posted, latest supp industry numbers had Flex at 120,000 and MD at 20,000. Last year, Flex was around 150,000 and MD was 40,000, so as a percentage basis they were closer, but not anymore. Flex fell more than others, but only because they started at a much higher number. As a percentage, they've fallen the least, and in pure numbers they're still way out ahead. The same is true, to an even greater degree, at Muscle & Fitness.

benchthis · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:40:37 PM »

i just happend to see it on ebay .01 starting bid

mwbbuilder · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2006, 03:41:50 PM »

Quote from: IndustryInsider on July 19, 2006, 03:03:53 PM

Interesting post. What sources can you show us to back up your claims? Without a credible source your post is nothing more than opinion. My information shows otherwise.

How about the obvious?

Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustraded used to 300 pages years ago. Now, they are only as thick as a Sunday department store ad.

If it was still profitable for them to produce larger publications, why wouldn't they? Think of all the ad revenues they are losing.

bmacsys · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:14:27 PM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on July 19, 2006, 11:05:22 AM

The only way it would be dignified would be to have it read like the old physical culture and strength magazines of the past.

Nobody gives a f**k how Phil Heath trains because it is all steroids anyway. People are sick of it and don`t care to read it.

What I would like to see are ACTUAL training articles and photos. Not "posed" shit. I don't care if the lighting is poor or the gym is a dump. I rather have realism. Also no ghost written articles. Let the pro's actually write their training articles. That way you would get a real feel for what these guys are like. The articles Ronnie "writes" actually make him sound like a Rhodes Scholar. We know that isn't Ronnie. Have some good articles on training and diet for natural bodybuilders who after all are the majority. Don't insult our intelligence with shit like The Ramblin' Freak. Last but not least stop with the infomercial sales pitches passed off as articles.

ribonucleic · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:21:17 PM »

Quote from: mwbbuilder on July 19, 2006, 03:41:50 PM

Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustraded used to 300 pages years ago.

When was that??

No time I can recall in the last 30 years.

If you're talking about longer ago than that, the media landscape was so different then that it would be apples and oranges.

mwbbuilder · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:24:10 PM »

Quote from: ribonucleic on July 19, 2006, 04:21:17 PM

When was that??

No time I can recall in the last 30 years.

If you're talking about longer ago than that, the media landscape was so different then that it would be apples and oranges.

Are you saying that those magazines were the size they are now 10 years ago?

ribonucleic · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:30:16 PM »

Quote from: mwbbuilder on July 19, 2006, 04:24:10 PM

Are you saying that those magazines were the size they are now 10 years ago?

I'm saying that, to the best of my recollection, at no time in the past 30 years have they ever been 300 pages - which is what you claimed.

Are they skinnier than they used to be? It wouldn't surprise me - though I doubt the shrinkage is even as high as 20%. There are other mags - can't think of the names offhand - that are definitely a lot skimpier.

The Luke · « **Reply #37 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:50:58 PM »

What all these mags need to do is run an article on me:

http://www.phillipswi.com/bee/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=205864

...one of the world's biggest and most muscular natural bodybuilders, me, (who also happens to be a scientist) out there trying to discover the training secrets of a tribe of wild, 800 lb muscle men who don't take supplements, don't take steroids... don't even work out.

PM me guys, this is the biggest story in bodybuilding today... definitely cover material (if not a monthly column).

The Luke

alexxx · « **Reply #38 on:** July 19, 2006, 04:55:21 PM »

Quote from: The Luke on July 19, 2006, 04:50:58 PM

What all these mags need to do is run an article on me:

http://www.phillipswi.com/bee/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=205864

...one of the world's biggest and most muscular natural bodybuilders, me, (who also happens to be a scientist) out there trying to discover the training secrets of a tribe of wild, 800 lb muscle men who don't take supplements, don't take steroids... don't even work out.

PM me guys, this is the biggest story in bodybuilding today... definitely cover material (if not a monthly column).

The Luke

Once you meet Bigfoot do you expect him to ram your ass with a tree trunk of a woodle?

The Luke · « **Reply #39 on:** July 19, 2006, 05:03:27 PM »

Sorry Alexxx, can you pose that question in English?

The Luke

alexxx · « **Reply #40 on:** July 19, 2006, 05:04:37 PM »

Quote from: The Luke on July 19, 2006, 05:03:27 PM

Sorry Alexxx, can you pose that question in English?

The Luke

Ask sarcasm for an interpretation.

G o a t b o y · « **Reply #41 on:** July 19, 2006, 05:11:48 PM »

With all the information on the internet for free and accessable anywhere, seriously who reads magazines anymore? About the only places I've read magazines in the past seven or eight years has been on airplanes and in my doctor's waiting room. And if I had to pay for them, I wouldn't have even read those.

Paper magazines have two remaining major markets: Old people who aren't completely comfortable with the internet, and poor-ass motherfucckers who can't afford internet access, yet spend money on gossip rags at the supermarket check-out line.

I suspect that once people born before 1965 or so start dying off, paper magazines will largely be a thing of the past, with the companies that used to publish them producing internet content, and relying on advertising for 100% of their revenue. Since they are no longer paying printing or distribution costs (big chunks of publishers' budgets), plus cutting out wholesalers and retailers, those who successfully transition to the new model should survive even without subscription revenue.

Crusher · « **Reply #42 on:** July 19, 2006, 05:19:37 PM »

Quote from: Undermind on July 19, 2006, 03:29:12 PM

It's the other way around, my friend. Flex is audited, MD isn't. True, ad numbers don't always equal sales (mags get whatever they can get), but if you believe MD hype that they're "closing the gap" you're being taken for a ride. As Ron posted, latest supp industry numbers had Flex at 120,000 and MD at 20,000. Last year, Flex was around 150,000 and MD was 40,000, so as a percentage basis they were closer, but not anymore. Flex fell more than others, but only because they started at a much higher number. As a percentage, they've fallen the least, and in pure numbers they're still way out ahead. The same is true, to an even greater degree, at Muscle & Fitness.

First of all, if you are going to participate in an intelligent debate, stating something so stupid as MD going from 40,000 copies to 20,000 copies, year to date, is about as close to a melt down as one can get. If you are going to grind your axe, don't be so obvious.

Next, "As Ron posted, latest supp industry numbers had Flex at 120,000 and MD at 20,000. Last year, Flex was around 150,000." That is total bullshit, my friend. Where is Ron getting his numbers? Doesn't Pecker let you guys read the ABC report? The June 19th, 2006 issue of New Single Copy stated that circulation numbers for Flex magazine, reported by the ABC, stated that for the 2nd half of 2005 that total circulation numbers for Flex magazine was only 112,000 not 150,000. (The ABC numbers were actually 111,640. NSC just rounded up).

That 111,640, like I said earlier, according to ABC, year end total circulation numbers for Flex magazine declined 9.6%! This represents a 7.3% drop in news stand sales and a 13.4% drop in subscriptions! Next time get your facts straight...

best · « **Reply #43 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:45:58 PM »

Quote from: Undermind on July 19, 2006, 03:29:12 PM

It's the other way around, my friend. Flex is audited, MD isn't. True, ad numbers don't always equal sales (mags get whatever they can get), but if you believe MD hype that they're "closing the gap" you're being taken for a ride. As Ron posted, latest supp industry numbers had Flex at 120,000 and MD at 20,000. Last year, Flex was around 150,000 and MD was 40,000, so as a percentage basis they were closer, but not anymore. Flex fell more than others, but only because they started at a much higher number. As a percentage, they've fallen the least, and in pure numbers they're still way out ahead. The same is true, to an even greater degree, at Muscle & Fitness.

I guess you missed what I said completely? I was responding to your comment about Flex getting 5X more per Ad page over their competitors. Here let me repost for you.

Quote from: best on July 19, 2006, 03:13:58 PM

You are way off on your assumptions about how much Flex gets for Ad pages my friend. And if anyone is paying 5x more for an Ad in Flex over MD then they are being taken for a ride. Fact - You can get a page for $2000 in flex magazine. Do your homework and then fire your marketing guy for wasting your money and overpaying while everyone else is paying less.

Where did I mention circulation? And as far as "mags getting whatever they can get" for pages, I would agree with you. And $2000 per page is about what Flex is able to get from those who know better.

bmacsys · « **Reply #44 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:47:59 PM »

Quote from: G o a t b o y on July 19, 2006, 05:11:48 PM

I suspect that once people born before 1965 or so start dying off, paper magazines will largely be a thing of the past, with the companies that used to publish them producing internet content, and relying on advertising for 100% of their revenue. Since they are no longer paying printing or distribution costs (big chunks of publishers' budgets), plus cutting out wholesalers and retailers, those who successfully transition to the new model should survive even without subscription revenue.

Very good analysis. Being involved in the printing industry I know this firsthand.

best · « **Reply #45 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:08:02 PM »

For those who are not involved in the advertising, printing or publishing industries and would like to be enlightened about the future of advertising, or for those that are in it and may have missed this...

The End of Advertising and Media as We Have Known It
Why Tacoda CEO Dave Morgan Thinks Sir Martin Sorrell's Got it Wrong

By Dave Morgan, CEO of Tacoda

http://adage.com/digital/article.php?article_id=110442

HUGEPECS · « **Reply #46 on:** July 20, 2006, 05:03:48 AM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on July 19, 2006, 11:05:22 AM

The only way it would be dignified would be to have it read like the old physical culture and strength magazines of the past.

Nobody gives a f**k how Phil Heath trains because it is all steroids anyway. People are sick of it and don`t care to read it.

Flex might wanna be a little hardcore. The truth is outthere and people dont expect any magazine to keep telling them some bullshit. I wonder why Flex kept a long distance from discussing about steroids in the sport we call "BODYBUILDING"

Crusher · « **Reply #47 on:** July 20, 2006, 08:10:12 AM »

Quote from: HUGEPECS on July 20, 2006, 05:03:48 AM

Flex might wanna be a little hardcore. The truth is outthere and people dont expect any magazine to keep telling them some bullshit. I wonder why Flex kept a long distance from discussing about steroids in the sport we call "BODYBUILDING"

Because Ben Weider wanted it in the Olympics.

MCWAY · « **Reply #48 on:** July 20, 2006, 08:22:23 AM »

Quote from: HUGEPECS on July 20, 2006, 05:03:48 AM

Flex might wanna be a little hardcore. The truth is outthere and people dont expect any magazine to keep telling them some bullshit. I wonder why Flex kept a long distance from discussing about steroids in the sport we call "BODYBUILDING"

Perhaps, it's because other sports don't yap about ingesting pharmaceuticals. You aren't going to find Caddillac Williams' GH intake in a football magazine, or Tim Duncan's Winstrol consumption in a basketball magazine.

Quote from: Crusher on July 20, 2006, 08:10:12 AM

Because Ben Weider wanted it in the Olympics.

Truth be told, I was thrilled when Ben Weider got Olympic recognition for bodybuilding in 1998. It seemed to be just around the corner. Bodybuilding might have been an Olympic sport in 2008. But, alas, the rug got yanked from underneath Weider. The old IOC chairman retired and the guy who took his placed kicked bodybuilding out.

No doubt, that broke Ben's (and Joe's) heart.

Mars · « **Reply #49 on:** July 20, 2006, 08:24:59 AM »

Bodybuilding is such an olympic sport