[cyberneticist]

It is because there are all kinds of cost not being factored in here.

You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing.

I am sure many other cost that we aren't thinking about since not in the magazine business.

To me, I am a prime example of someone who use to absolutely love magazines who could not be bothered now. There is no price that will get me to subscribe. I just don't want to be sent paper in the mail.

[coldtea]

>You aren't going to keep the subscription base without spending a ton on marketing

If you do quality work, you don't need to spend a ton on marketing. And this is very livable revenue - tons of media outlets thrived on less (inflation adjusted) back in the day.

The main problem is belonging to some conglomerate who doesn't care for such small profits or a business breaking even. They're an insect to them.

A corporation running from a non-profit dedicated to the mission (as opposed to those greedy people), or passionate private owner(s), would have no problem to continue.

[whimsicalism]

I don’t know how to put this but you are just absolutely wrong about the economics of this and beyond that you are confidently wrong even when presented with basic numbers.

Producing what National Geographic magazine does is not cheap and they have historically had much higher revenue. Nevermind that they are still continuing, just without staff writers.

[russian-troll]

Though I'm agree with you about conglomerate that doesn't care I honestly kek'd at If you do quality work, you don't need to spend a ton on marketing. To find a way to your potential customers is a continuous and never ending task for most businesses.

[tonightstoast]

They have an online subscription. It’s part of Apple News+