Too Much Advertising?

A comment on last week's post about the sale of Climbing magazine raises an interesting question: "Where you write that Climbing has to increase editorial, do you mean there is too much advertising in the magazine?" The answer is no, despite the frequently heard complaint that Climbing & Rock & Ice are "all ads." Readers would be much better off if the mags had more ads. Here's why.

Almost all modern magazines adhere to an ad-to-edit ratio: The more ads in a given issue, the bigger the magazine, and thus the more editorial pages for readers to enjoy (or to vilify, as the case may be). In the old days, the big U.S. climbing magazines ran much "looser" than they do today. Rock & Ice, which I operated for about five years, used to run as little as 30 percent advertising; George Bracksieck, the magazine's previous owner, published 148 pages each issue for many years no matter how few ads he sold; he did it by cutting expenses to the bone and by absorbing losses when he had to. In those days, Climbing magazine also ran loose, sometimes topping 200 total pages.

But starting in the late 1990s, two things happened that eventually shrank the magazines. First, both magazines got new ownership (Cowles/Primedia in Climbing's case; North-South Publications in Rock & Ice's), and both owners sought growth and a return on their investment. As the magazines added issues, they no longer could be produced with a couple of people in a garage (R&I) or the back room of an Aspen newspaper (Climbing). Combined with ever-increasing paper, printing, distribution, and editorial costs, the mags were forced to tighten up their ad-to-edit ratios, so that each page printed and distributed was more profitable. Both magazines now aspire to run about 50 percent ads, which brings them in line with the low end of magazine-industry standards.

(Interestingly, R&I typically runs more ads per edit page than Climbing does, but it looks like it has less, thanks to its new, larger format and a more open design. Climbing usually has a higher percentage of editorial but looks more crowded, thanks to a busier, more dense design. Comes down to which design aesthetic you prefer, I guess.)

Tighter ad-edit ratios were fine when the climbing and ad businesses were booming. Both magazines were fat. But starting with the Nasdaq/dot.com crash in early 2000, advertising went into a tailspin. Those dot.com double-truck spreads vanished almost overnight (does anyone remember Quokka or Planet Outdoors?); automotive and other "non-endemic" advertising withered; and the biggest outdoor advertisers, like Gore, North Face, Mountain Hardwear, etc., cut their schedules significantly. Even the core climbing companies cut way back as the sport's meteroric growth through the mid-1990s flattened, and as companies began to experiment with the Internet, event sponsorship, and other forms of marketing. The result has been much smaller magazines: Climbing's most recent issue was just 84 pages, and R&I's was 92 pages. Granted, the first issue of the year is always the smallest for the climbing magazines, but no one is expecting a major ad boom in 2007.

How can the mags deliver more editorial? Only two ways: Loosen the ad-edit ratio or sell more ads. Mark Crowther, who runs Urban Climber and just bought Climbing, seems to be promising a bit of the former (more editorial per ad page) for Climbing magazine. But the August-September issue of Urban Climber was almost 47 percent ads, right in there with the others. As you'd expect from a relatively new magazine, many of these were sponsorship or "house" (promotional) ads, but to the reader a free ad is the same as a paid ad—it still reduces the amount of editorial. Crowther may loosen Climbing's ratio a bit, but the only way readers of the big mags will see a significant increase in editorial pages is if they sell lots more advertising. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have more than 15 minutes of reading material in my climbing magazines. And that, dear readers, is why I think they don't have enough ads.

But wait, you say, what about Alpinist? Yes, Alpinist runs a very loose book—18.25 percent ads in its most recent 100-page issue—and readers love it for that. But even Alpinist has increased its ad-edit ratio significantly; it now runs about 40 percent more ads than it did in its first few years, with the same total page count. More importantly, the jury is still out on Alpinist's "reader supported" ($12.95 cover price) business model. Marc Ewing, the magazine's owner, has nearly pulled the plug at least once. Alpinst (and Climbing) have invested heavily in the Web in recent months, perhaps anticipating a day when the print mags are less important to the revenue picture. But print still drives the publishing businesss, and as long as print magazines are around they will depend on advertising.

Lecture over.