I should have waited two more minutes before hitting "send." CQ's most recent circulation statement is in the December 2003 issue, page 8. Average circulation for the previous 12 months: Mail subscriptions 23,158 Sales through dealers and news agents 12,806 Other classes mailed 225 Total paid 36,189 Free distribution 341 Total distribution 36,530 The only figure that might be open to some question is sales through dealers and new agents. To have that many actual sales they would have to have a sellthrough of 66%, which would be quite amazing. However, I wouldn't challenge it in public. These figures coupled with the readex survey suggest that CQ's pass-along readership might be slightly higher than ours, which would to stand to reason because they have far fewer subscribers than we have members and therefore a larger potential pass-along audience. Of course, they don't generate any direct revenue. But Joel asked what time it was, and here I am explaining how to build a watch.... Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:55 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10316] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ Joel, we'll dig up CQ's most recent sworn circulation statement. In addition to the sworn circulation statement, here are data points from the 1992 and 2003 readex surveys. According to the two readex surveys, between 1992 and 2003 CQ readership went from 113,803 down to 51,950. QST readership during the same period went from 195,763 down to 189,551. By the way, in the same period Worldradio readership went UP from 40,506 to 44,145. Readership includes pass-along and so is higher than the actual circulation. The amateur radio magazine that is most widely read by non-members of the ARRL is QST. These figures imply a greater degree of precision than the surveys actually possess, of course. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:46 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10311] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ Or that his "subscriber" base is mucho mucho less than our "membership". Dave/Mark - Just curious, what is CQ's current subscriber base? Joel -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:24 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10308] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ While we may not like to hear Moseson's comment, there is more than a grain of truth in it. The challenge is re-casting those perceptions. I do wonder however, how Rich explains the continuing decline in CQ subscribers. Jay -----Original Message----- From: W3KD@aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:10 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10306] Re: Fwd: A GREAT READ The American Radio Relay League's membership may have fallen sharply in the past decade, but that has more to do with how the organization is perceived by many hams than with the number or licensed or even active hams. Thanks, Rich Moseson, that is very helpful. Chris