Jeff – Thanks for catching that – I appreciate the pushback.
My original wording wasn’t as precise as it should have been. I said that “most outdoor publications relied on subscription revenue, which gave them a financial buffer that helped insulate editorial decisions from advertiser influence.” That overstates the degree to which subscriptions drove the economics of outdoor magazines in the print era. I’ve logged this for an update to the article so that future readers get a more accurate framing.
To clarify:
The FTC’s 2009 report on magazine economics (comment from the Magazine Publishers of America) notes that in 2007, “advertising’s contribution to magazine revenue was just under 60 percent; circulation’s contribution just over 40 percent.” That means advertising was still the majority revenue source.
There’s no specific evidence that outdoor magazines (e.g., Outside, Backpacker, Field & Stream, Ski, Runner’s World) deviated much from that mix. Those titles published hundreds to more than a thousand ad pages per year before the 2008 downturn, which suggests they were substantially ad-funded like most consumer magazines.
The Pew Research Center’s State of the News Media report (also citing 2007 data) supports the same ratio: about 58% ad revenue, 41% circulation, and 2% digital.
That said, the underlying intent, and the point I wanted to make, was about relative dependence – not absolutes. Compared to today’s online media models (where nearly 100% of revenue often comes from advertising, affiliate commissions, or sponsorships), the print-era mix was more diversified. That balance – even if roughly 60/40 – created at least some structural buffer between editorial and advertising.
Circulation revenue, even as a (substantial) minority, provided a direct economic relationship with readers that today’s ad-driven and algorithmic distribution models have largely eroded.
A more accurate way to restate my original idea would be something like this:
“Earlier outdoor magazines operated under a more balanced mix of subscription and advertising revenue. While they weren’t fully insulated from advertiser influence, this diversified model fostered stronger alignment with readers than the single-source digital models that dominate today.”
That better captures what I meant – and your critique helps get it there. Thanks again for prompting the clarification, and I’ll log this for a correction/update for this article with some others that I’m already working on.
.
