HUGO AWARD-WINNING SCIENCE FICTION & FANTASY MAGAZINE
Editor's Desk:
The Sad Truth About Short Fiction Magazines
Did you know that there are only three genre fiction magazines that completely support themselves from the revenue they generate? These are Analog, Asimov’s, and the Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, collectively known as the Big Three. Others, like Tor.com and Subterranean (now closed), are supported by the revenue of their parent companies. Below them are four more groups: the non-profits (like Strange Horizons and Beneath Ceaseless Skies); the hobbyists or beginners (typically characterized by low or no pay for authors); the aspirants (they pay authors SFWA-qualifying rates or better, but haven’t found reliable way to cover that cost); and the conceivable (the aspirants that have learned to generate enough revenue to cover costs, but not adequately compensate their staff). Today, I’d like to talk about the first and last two groups, but primarily the latter.
For starters, I know there are people who will nitpick the categorizations I’ve created. If that’s what you’re going to focus on, you’ll probably miss the point of this editorial. None of those categories are meant to diminish the value or quality of a market. It’s simply a way to break them up in terms of the current state of their business models. Don’t get hung up on the names. I’ve gone through a dozen permutations and will likely go through a dozen more in the months ahead.
Since I haven’t labeled the first two examples, let’s group them together and call them the professionals. It would also be fair to call them the old guard professionals, organizations that have their foundation in the pre-ebook print world. Yes, some of them have launched digital magazines, but these businesses established themselves first in the print world. None of these organizations have their foundation in the digital world. This is not a criticism. It is a simple observation. To their credit, each has learned to embrace the industry’s transition to print and digital. That’s what good businesses do. They adapt to market shifts or die.
Clarkesworld published its first issue nine years ago this month. During that time period, I’ve paid very close attention to what has been happening within this corner of the short fiction field. Within that nine-year window, the lion’s share of new genre magazines have launched from a digital foundation. Sure, some of us dabble in print, but our business models are very digital-oriented. This is largely due to financial- and distribution-related issues. The amount of money necessary to launch a print-based aspirant-level market with national distribution is staggering. You could fully-fund a digital publication for well over a year with the same amount and that’s not even taking into consideration warehousing expenses, the headaches caused by the distributors and their antiquated returns system, or the USPS and their continually increasing postal costs. Even though none of the digital-native publications have risen to the ranks of professional, the smart money these days is to launch digitally. (Note: There have been new and even some old print magazines that have failed within this window.)
In the pre-digital world, which happens to be most of my life, there were always new magazines coming and going. Without the digital options available, they adapted in other ways. Small print runs, hand-selling at conventions, mailing parties, and lower pay for authors and artists were routine. While many dreamed of reaching that professional tier, it was often clearly out of reach and as a result their expectations had to be more realistic. Quality and readership for publications were more variable and the overwhelming majority never left the hobbyist/beginner group. None of them reached the ranks of the professionals.
Just like in the rest of the industry, digital publishing has considerably lowered the bar to entry and it has completely altered the landscape for genre magazines. The aspirants category is larger than ever, and may even be growing at a rate faster than the number of new readers and writers entering the field.
There are two reasons to be worried about this:
1. Quality
If the number of quality stories isn’t growing as fast as the number of stories publishers need to fill all their slots, then quality must dip to fill the void.
2. Sustainability
If the number of readers willing to pay for short fiction isn’t growing as fast as the financial need of the publishers, the field begins to starve itself.
I’m singling out the aspirants here because they are the most at-risk. Their financial foundation is the least stable of the groups I’m focusing on, so they are the most likely to fall victim. In the long term, the danger also extends up the food chain and endangers the conceivables and the professionals. It’s considerably less likely to significant alter the trajectory of the publications further down the chain.
Without a doubt, the lowered bar has triggered a boom period in short fiction. Most of the time that’s been quite exciting, but more recently I’ve found myself noticing some worrisome trends that could be signs of a market correction looming on the horizon.
Over the years, I’ve consulted on a number of new publishing projects. I generally start by telling people that they need to have a metric for knowing when to quit. For example, how much money are you willing to lose? It’s a business, not your baby, so you need to know when to fold. There’s no shame in this and you can always try again later. Our history is littered with magazines that couldn’t make a go of it for some reason or another.
The second thing I tell people is to start small and grow. You are only asking for trouble if you try to be everything you aspire to all at once. Map out where you want to be in three years and slowly work towards it by building the revenue and readership you need to justify it. Even if someone hands you a big check, you still need to plan wisely and think about more than just the next year.
Lately, I’ve started seeing projects to resurrect dead magazines or save those that couldn’t get enough subscribers to sustain their ambitious goals. It’s uplifting to see our community rallying around these causes, but are we setting ourselves up for a fall in the process? Are we simply delaying the inevitable, like what happened with Realms of Fantasy? (For those who don’t know, Realms of Fantasy was a print magazine that kept coming back from the dead because there were people passionate enough about it to want to see it continue, but not enough to make it a viable business.)
But what can any of us do about it? Here’s a few suggestions:
As I’ve worked on this piece, it’s been hard not to get depressed about the odds for any conceivables breaking into the ranks of the professionals. If we’re entering a phase of market compression, and I think we are, the hill will only become steeper. I’d love to see Clarkesworld be the first to cross over, but I’ve learned to be realistic about this business and appreciative of what we have achieved in the last nine years. I appreciate everything our readers have done to support us and hope you’ll continue to stick with us on the road ahead. We can’t do it without you. None of us can.
I consider many of the editors at the other magazines to be friends and colleagues. While I may not agree with some of their business practices (and they mine), they have my respect and best wishes. The sad truth about short fiction magazines is many of them won’t be around ten years from now. The good news is that the market always corrects itself and someone else—sometimes even someone who’s tried before—steps up to replace the fallen with something new.
One more time:
Thank you.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Neil Clarke is the editor of Clarkesworld Magazine, Forever Magazine, and The SFWA Bulletin; owner of Wyrm Publishing; and a six-time Hugo Award Nominee for Best Editor (short form). His anthologies include Upgraded, Galactic Empires, More Human Than Human, The Final Frontier, and the Best Science Fiction of the Years series. His most recent anthology, Not One of Us, was published in November by Night Shade Books. He currently lives in NJ with his wife and two children.
WEBSITE
Also by this Author
PURCHASE THIS ISSUE:
CLARKESWORLD ESUBSCRIPTIONS AVAILABLE AT
Follow Us On
ISSN 1937-7843 Clarkesworld Magazine © 2006-2018 Wyrm Publishing. Robot illustration by Serj Iulian.
Neil Clarke wrote on October 3rd, 2015 at 10:41 am:
So a few people have decided to post rebuttals or responses to this post on their own blogs. That's fine, I wanted some conversation on the issue, but a few people have read things into what I've said or made various assumptions about the field. I'm correcting those here.
Sales and advertising are not the only source of revenue magazines should be pursuing, but they are the dominant source of income for the most financially successful. Honestly, advertising is a distant second and can often be ignored by less-established magazines. There are many other sources of income that can add up, but even in total, they are overshadowed by impact that subscriptions/sales can have. Subscriptions may not be the proper course of action for someone who is running a charity, loss-leader (they are making their money elsewhere, probably sales of something else), or hobby, but it certainly doesn't hurt.
The difference between a business and a hobby is that a business expects to make money in the long term. Both have limits on what they are willing to lose. Talk to an tax accountant if you have any doubt about whether or not your magazine is a business, charity, or hobby.
Despite my warning about getting distracted by the category names, some have chosen to go down the rabbit hole in an attempt to find insult. The original draft of this piece used "successful businesses" instead of professionals and "successful charities" instead of non-profits. Maybe I should have left those in place, but I was trying to avoid triggering knee-jerk responses to what I'd have to call the lower levels. There are many ways to measure success and I'm not talking about the quality of their work, the size of their audience, or any of that. I'm talking about the financial success/viability of their business. The low end of the scale is failing businesses. *GASP* As a field, however, we do have a tendency to hang on to these longer than we should. (See my Realms of Fantasy comment.)
Yes, it's a truth that hurts to hear. Some magazines aren't financially sustainable either due to mismanagement (that includes poor planning) or misfortune. Be wary of that first group. Money doesn't solve those kinds of problems. I stand my best courses of action as proactive rather than reactive.
There's always room for experimentation, but we shouldn't ignore what works. I do a lot of consulting for new magazines and I will continue to do so. In this editorial, I mentioned some of the things I ask those people. I should have mentioned one more... What void are you filling? Found a hole? GREAT! Fill it. If not, think twice. The field is strengthened through variety. Just know how to measure success and failure before you start.
One final thought (for now): There is a difference between acting professional and being a professional. One is behavioral and the other isn't. We can't all be professionals, but we should all act professional.
Alex Tolley wrote on October 4th, 2015 at 6:14 pm:
Hmmm, you pulled my comment concerning subscription costs.
From Amazon
Analog 12 issues $34.97
Asimovs 12 issues $34.97
Clarkesworld $2.99/issue = $35.88/12 issues
Therefore CW is more expensive than the competition.
Just comparing like-with-like kindle sales rank:
Analog 45,248
Asimovs 28,685
CW 70,940
Unless you are sure your price elasticity is less than 1, you might want to test the market at a lower price.
Neil Clarke wrote on October 4th, 2015 at 7:38 pm:
Actually, your comment and my reply is on a different editorial.
Analog and Asimov's only publish ten issues per year. You are billed for a twelve month period (a one year subscription). You are also looking at the print subscription costs.
Apples to apples, their digital subscription costs are the same as ours, $2.99/month, but we publish twelve issues instead of ten for the same price. Here's the link to Asimov's digital subscription: http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Science-Fiction/dp/B000N8V3F0
Alex Tolley wrote on October 4th, 2015 at 9:54 pm:
Oops my mistake on the editorial comment. If Analog and Asimov's only offer 10 issues per year, then the Amazon subscription info is deceptive.
However, my main point should still be valid. Offering a product at the same price point as your competitors assumes that the perceived value is the same. Obviously it is difficult to compare data against 'zines that have been around a lot longer and also have print copies in bookstores. Nevertheless, experimenting with different pricing will help determine whether you have optimized your profits or not. You want to do this without upsetting existing subscribers or cannibalizing sales, but that should be relatively easy to do.
Purely as an anecdotal single data point, my sense is that Analog and Asimov's win by offering content from better established writers, which gives the subscriber more confidence in the quality of each issue. Just my 2 cents. Your marketing may well be telling you a very different story.
Neil Clarke wrote on October 4th, 2015 at 11:23 pm:
No problem.
If you judge perceived value by award nominations and stories reprinted in year's best anthologies, we're right up there alongside them in terms of quality. That said, everyone has their own metric for quality and each magazine has its own flavor.
The print copies in bookstores thing is very relevant. As a data point, I've noticed ebook sales rise when the print edition is on bookstore shelves and falls when it isn't. You can almost consider the print edition a marketing tool for the digital edition. It's quite possibly relevant in this case.
Justin James wrote on October 5th, 2015 at 1:59 pm:
Neil -
A few quick comments:
1. Your last few editorials about the publishing industry have been *very* interesting to me and I appreciate them. It's neat to get a peek at the industry from an insider's perspective.
2. If people are getting their cranks turned over your choice of *labels* I agree they are missing the point. As someone who has owned a small, part-time business for a long time I understand that the use of the word "hobby" is actually a legal term from the IRS (it has to do with consistently losing money), and your usage is inline with that definition. I think that your use of the labels (including "failing business") was respectful and not trying to put anyone down. A "business" that doesn't make a profit or struggles to make one year after year is not a "success" by the definition of "business"!
3. I would LOVE to see information about how CW's growth has changed the bottom line. I've noticed more stories and longer stories... is that because subs are up, or do they drive more subs? Or both?
J.Ja
Neil Clarke wrote on October 5th, 2015 at 3:38 pm:
Thanks Justin! Much appreciated. Some of the people I've upset are the "you just don't get my business model" types who think they're bucking the establishment or the old guard. In the end, new- or old-style, we're all held to those IRS definitions.
As for growth, I could probably go on at length about the need for starting small and reinvesting when you can. Smart growth can expand your audience and bring on the next wave. If you do it right, you start a feedback loop. The trick is knowing when you've reached the point of diminishing returns... just like with any business.
chris wrote on October 7th, 2015 at 2:52 pm:
Neil and Alex-- here's my "single data point" or whatever we're calling it. As a LONG-time subscriber of the print editions of both Asimov's and Analog, I have observed these things (among others, if course, and with the caveat that I don't do statistics...):
Both Dell magazines print new authors more often than they used to (I think).
I have read fiction in Clarkesworld that is equal to or better than that which I read in the Dells*, and Clarkesworld is so far the only online source I can say that about-- but new authors elsewhere are maturing incredibly fast in front of my very eyes!
*And vice versa, of course. It's all subjective.
Usually when I read a name in online format that I recognize , it's from print that I recognize it, and I have come to recognize that Clarkesworld is possibly the first-choice venue for some authors. Meaning, in my musician's language, Clarkesworld wins the audition. Bravo!
Sam Bellotto Jr. wrote on October 28th, 2015 at 7:50 pm:
"Galaxy" magazine died a long time ago. It was part of the Big Four. I liked "Galaxy."
Exceptional editorial! I have to agree with most of it. At "Perihelion," we maintain a very narrow focus. Spreading ourselves too thin would be sheer disaster. We are very close to meeting our three-year-goal: sustainability, at the least; increased readership; increased manuscript submissions so we can slowly upgrade the quality of what we publish.
We are also professionals. "Perihelion" is not a hobby, although I enjoy producing it. I am a retired magazine editor with nearly 40 years experience in the business. I'd not know what else to do with myself.
Parenthetically, I founded the magazine way back in the late '60s. But print was prohibitively expensive for a fledgling entrepreneur. So I had to put the magazine on hold, always intending to restart it. Took a while!
Legendary editor Ed Ferman once told me he thought there was room in the industry for a magazine like "Perihelion." Probably a few more if they take your editorial to heart. Spot on. Thanks.
Joseph Dveon wrote on November 2nd, 2015 at 9:39 am:
As a publisher somewhere in the lower echelons of these categories this was an interesting read. It's hard to tell if the miracle of the digital age is ushering in tons of new great art and allowing more people access too it, or if it's just lowering the bar for what gets published. I guess it's a mix of the two and you never know when a hidden gem that might have been overlooked is going to be saved because so much more is getting published.
All in all, though, my takeaway from this is...dude don't be depressed about the odds! The odds are always terrible, you can't focus on that. It's sad for me to see someone who is so at the heart of the industry getting bummed out like that. Remember that it's about stories, it's about finding awesome content, it's about reading and sharing and enjoying art. The Writer's Arena may not be around in a few years, obviously I'd love to keep it going longer, but either way it still has brought tons of great stories to light and it's better to focus on that and be a bit pie-in-the-sky then to get depressed about the odds. Plus you never know what innovations us little guys are going to come up with to monetize...
Taylor Harbin wrote on July 29th, 2016 at 10:13 pm:
Very interesting. This helped put my uphill battle to publish in SFWA-qualifying markets into perspective. I had no idea the numbers were so staggering.