Let My People Read! Mags Cut Subscription Shackles.

I've written before about the deceitful and self-defeating ways of magazine subscription departments. Used-car salesmen must love magazine marketers, because these publishing pros make them look good by comparison.

Now, from Time Inc. (of all places) comes a very cool new idea for mix-and-match, change-on-the-fly subscriptions. The plan, which is being implemented now for a September launch, may just push the marketing ninnies with their ludicrously premature bills and their dishonest renewal reminders out of the picture altogether.

Huh: Stodgy mainstream media actually trying a flexible, fun, fresh, consumer-oriented distribution model — I'm impressed. Then again, these are the same people who, when you sign up, have traditionally told you that it may take six to eight weeks before you'll see your first issue. (I've always wanted to tell them that they should wait six to eight weeks before cashing my check, too.)

Still, good stuff, in theory. Maybe there's hope for these dinosaurs yet.

Comments

[Steve Ely]

Definitely an appealing prospect, depending on the titles included. The article says they've got 280 lined up and maybe 300 by the launch, but the pre-launch web site seems to show fewer than 50 of those. I don't think I'll sign up just for what I see listed there, but I probably would if the other 250 include enough good stuff. Eager to see how it shapes up.

[Steve Ely]

Also, I just realized their pricing model doesn't really make sense. Wouldn't you expect the price per title to go down as you increase the number of titles you're subscribing to? But with "three titles for $3.95 per month, five titles for $7.95, and seven titles for $9.95," you're looking at $1.31 per title if you subscribe to three, $1.59 each if you get five, and $1.42 for each if you get seven. That's just weird. Maybe the idea is to really deter people from subscribing to five titles? Really, why is there a penalty for a medium number of titles?