Doug Miller wrote:
In article Q9nle.641$zb.194@trndny02, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
magazines do that.

I'm *sure* it's standard industry practice. ISTM that *most* magazines do
that: send out the initial renewal invoice six to nine months before your
subscription expires and hope you renew; then, if you don't, as your
subscription expiry date approaches, send out further invoices at
progressively lower prices until you finally take the hook.

It has gone on for decades. Something over 35 years ago, we had a
subscription to Life, at about a nickel a copy. We didn't have time to
read it, so let it lapse (this was about '67 or '68). It kept coming
until we left that address in late '72. But the nickel a copy, IIRC,
was down from something like 15-20 cents for a regular subscription,
which was a dime or more under newsstand rates.

Of course, if you want hear about a real scam artist, talk to A.J.
about the outfit that is still trying to sell Woodshop News subs for
about $72. Nothing to do with WSN, but they do suck some people in
(they also sell subs to Newsweek and similar mags at exorbitant rates).

Ed,

I'm glad your subscription cost concern has been heard and will work out for
you. Most, but certainly not all, of the folks in the woodworking industry
are great to do business with. There are the usual assortment of bad
apples, as in any field.

Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more information
before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We are
never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)

I've addressed the post to you but I'm really talking to everyone to posted
to this thread.

Jack Flatley
Jacksonville, FL

--
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is
the belief that one's work is terribly important."
--Bertrand
Russell




"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:Frnle.2831$Fb.1325@trndny07...

"John Flatley" wrote in message
...
Ed,

When you renewed your subscription for $24.95 you got a
deal/service/bargain
that you wanted. I assume you thought that was a fair price, that's why
you
renewed.


Since I replied to this, I received an email from WJ. With their
explanation, I seems I'm getting a good deal. I'm at work and my papers
are
at home, but I have no reason to doubt what they told me.

I asked, they answered. That is what my message was about. Rob was
willing
to come forward yesterday, one of his associates contacted me today. I
appreciate that and it helps keep a good relationship between us.
Ed

On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:53:04 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:
SNIP
I did learn something. Don't trust the first offer from a publisher. As I
stated, I did not intend to bother with anything, but the opportunity to
learn about it came up. So, why not learn? Is knowing the standard
practice a bad thing? Is knowing how to save money for the same
product/service a bad thing? Is sharing that information in a newsgroup a
bad thing?

I am curious to know if this is a standard industry practice or something
that recently happened to reduce prices. Why do you feel I'm wrong in
wanting to know that? Airlines sell tickets to the same destination on the
same plane at different rates at different times. I just want to know if
magazines do that.


I have had more than one magazine where I noticed that the renewal
price offered to me was more than the New Subscriber price being
offered in various mailings. In those cases, assuming I wanted the
magazine renewal in the first place, I have subscribed my wife or son.
The next year I am somehow magically a new subscriber so the next
subscription goes into my name again. Is all that BS worth the $4
saved - well yeah, 'cause it is a game. I have also noted that the
renewal price does appear to go down the closer to the renewal point
you get or if you let the subscription lapse for a couple of days.
What I don't understand is where those marketing directors were when
they taught in Marketing 101 that it is much less expensive to keep a
customer than to generate a new customer. This is important because
usually when I see these kinds of silliness I just don't renew under
any name at all.

Dave Hall

"Vic Baron" wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
snip

Well. my two cents also -


Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!


Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not want
to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
did not pay for.

"Leon" wrote:

"Vic Baron" wrote in message news:lDmle.21435

Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!


Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not want
to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
did not pay for.


Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
stretch pretty far to consider this not free.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Baron" wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
snip

Well. my two cents also -


Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!


Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not
want
to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
did not pay for.


Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who DO!!
Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!

"alexy" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote:

Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
stretch pretty far to consider this not free.

Absolutely not. Gong with the theme of many not liking this approach to
marketing, of the thousands of books that get tossed and not paid for, those
that do buy from that company end up paying for that book. It would be far
cheaper on those buying the books if the publisher sent out a letter with a
request to review and buy the book.

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
...


Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who
DO!!
Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!

Do you pay doctor bills? There are many people that do not pay their bills
because they know the clinic will eventually absorb the charges and raise
their rates, insurance premiums go up and so on. The patients paying the
bills basically pay for those that don't. Same thing here except the
publisher is encouraging this practice by the attached letter to not pay or
return if you don't want to. Those that do buy the book from that
publisher partially pay for the book that they encouraged you to keep.

Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.

First not paying doctors bills that are truly owed isn't even close to
paying for a book for which you do not owe. People who go to the
doctor are engaging a service for which they know a payment is
expected. They use the services, then willingly stiff the doctor.
These books are sent as a marketing enticement to encourage the
recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
make them so. They are what they a marketing offers.

Second, sending these books is a marketing campaign that has already
figured the cost of non-returns into the campaign itself. Books that
are not returned do not raise the price of the books that are later
sold. It's just the opposite -- books that are later sold eliminate
the (negligible) cost of the non-returns. These types of campaigns
make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
to others.

A.J.

"Leon" wrote:


"alexy" wrote in message
.. .
"Leon" wrote:

Are you suggesting he send this one back to help hold down the cost of
books for the rest of the woodworking community as well as his future
books? Surely you jest. I'm as much of a believer in TANSTAAFL as the
next guy, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. You've got to
stretch pretty far to consider this not free.

Absolutely not. Gong with the theme of many not liking this approach to
marketing, of the thousands of books that get tossed and not paid for, those
that do buy from that company end up paying for that book. It would be far
cheaper on those buying the books if the publisher sent out a letter with a
request to review and buy the book.


Maybe, maybe not. I don't think you or I have the data to know this --
at least I don't. Most printing of which I am aware has a fairly large
fixed cost and fairly small variable cost. It's a trivial exercise to
create two different scenarios with fixed versus variable costs,
response rates to a promotion like they did versus response to one
like you propose, with one scenario showing the approach you use to
create lower cost books for those who subscribe, and another scenario
to show the approach they used to end up with lower cost books for
subscribers.

But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
...


Ah - but if I never buy another book from them it only costs those who
DO!!
Ergo, it's still f**king free to me!

Do you pay doctor bills? There are many people that do not pay their
bills
because they know the clinic will eventually absorb the charges and raise
their rates, insurance premiums go up and so on. The patients paying the
bills basically pay for those that don't. Same thing here except the
publisher is encouraging this practice by the attached letter to not pay
or
return if you don't want to. Those that do buy the book from that
publisher partially pay for the book that they encouraged you to keep.



Gee, Leon - you're breaking my heart. That's tough for them, I'll still keep
the book and if they send me another one, I'll keep that too.

As far as them that has paying for them that hasn't( or won't) - welcome to
reality. It's a tough life but someone's gotta live it.

"A.J. Hamler" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.

First not paying doctors bills that are truly owed isn't even close to
paying for a book for which you do not owe. People who go to the
doctor are engaging a service for which they know a payment is
expected. They use the services, then willingly stiff the doctor.
These books are sent as a marketing enticement to encourage the
recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
make them so. They are what they a marketing offers.

Second, sending these books is a marketing campaign that has already
figured the cost of non-returns into the campaign itself. Books that
are not returned do not raise the price of the books that are later
sold. It's just the opposite -- books that are later sold eliminate
the (negligible) cost of the non-returns. These types of campaigns
make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
to others.

A.J.


Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.

V

Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.

"Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean "flush the
toilet."

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

"Lee Gordon" wrote in message
...
Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.

"Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean "flush
the
toilet."

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"



I'd say "Whatever floats - bit that brings unpleasant visuals to mind

"Lee Gordon" wrote:

Dog gone it A.J. - that's too damn lucid. More fun to pull chains.

"Pull the chain." That was the phrase my dad used to use to mean
"flush the toilet."

I actually remember those toilets! Tank was fixed High on the wall. I had
to stand on the rim to 'pull the chain' and always feared slipping off into
the bowl.


Lee

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
...

"A.J. Hamler" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, actually, you're wrong on two counts.


I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.

"John Flatley" wrote in message
news

Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
information
before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
are
never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)


Ohhhhh John... I have to differ. Taking this approach will only result in
the standard newsgroup feeding frenzy where folks jump in and take their
turn at bash the vendor, or bash vendors at large. The best course of
action is to always take the problem to the respective party before taking
it to a public forum. Public forums are infinately less capable of
providing accurate answers than the agency involved. What public forums
excel at though is turning the smallest thing into some over grown, bloated
issue. Those opinions you reference are often the most dangerous form of
the written word.

--

-Mike-

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Baron" wrote in message news:lDmle.21435
snip

Well. my two cents also -


Keep sending out the free books boys - love freebies!!!!


Well, they have apparently sold you that the book is free if you do not
want
to pay for it but NOTHING in life is free.
SOME ONE pays for those books that are not returned and not paid for. The
next book you buy will help pay for that book that you did not return and
did not pay for.



It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they were
shipped out. It was a marketing gamble. Returning the book will do nothing
to impact the cost of purchasing them and shipping them out.

--

-Mike-

In article , Leon
wrote:

I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.

There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
annnoying invoices being sent.

This is a planned campaign whose cost has already been factored into
budgets.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article , Mike Marlow
wrote:

It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they were
shipped out. It was a marketing gamble. Returning the book will do nothing
to impact the cost of purchasing them and shipping them out.

What? You mean if a company makes more profit because of lower cost
they don't lower their prices to offset it?

Shocking!

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

Leon wrote:
....
No obligation on the cover of the box does not assure me that I am not going
to have to do something to keep from being obligated. I personally would
have rather not had to even open the box to find out any details at all
before I threw the contents away.

You don't ever have to...as the info posted from the USPS stated,
any unsolicited material is not encumbent upon the recipient in any
regard by law. You can trash it or simply write "Refused" or other
indication on it and leave it for the mailman. If somebody else takes
it instead, no problem.

Robatoy wrote:

.....

PS..when a telemarketer calls, I always ask for his/her home-phone
number so I can call them back....or I answer in a language I make up as
I go along.

I just lay the phone down and let 'em talk until they finally figure out
there's no response...at least they're bothering one other poor soul for
just a few less minutes...

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Leon
wrote:

I did not mean to take my comparison quite so literally. I was only
demonstrating that waste costs all consumers directly or indirectly.

There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
annnoying invoices being sent.
....

A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed...

"A.J. Hamler" wrote in message
recipient to engage the service. Those who choose not to engage the
service (that is, receive more books) do not owe anything. That is why
the follow-up letters from WWJ are not invoices, not bills, and not
dunning letters. They fact that you interpret them to be so, does not
make them so. They are what they a marketing offers.

But they sure as hell look like an invoice. I don't have mine any more or
I'd scan it and post it to get other's (and your)opinions. Just like junk
mail that comes in plain brown official looking government envelopes, people
can get confused. If I get a third one, I'll post it and then we'll pick it
apart together. While perfectly legal, I see this sort of thing frequently
in the commercial sector too.


These types of campaigns
make far more money than they lose. In other words, the fact that they
do MAKE money means that they -- the marketers of such items -- LOSE
nothing, and therefore do not have to pass on the costs of those loses
to others.

A.J.

I'm sure if they lost, they stop the practice. We are just expressing our
opinions of it.

BTW, in case you missed my other post., I did hear from Woodworker's Journal
about the subscription rates. It was clearly explained (that is all I
asked) and I got a very fair deal. I'll probably renew again next time it
comes up. They did take the time to reply and that is appreciated. I've
had crow for dinner before and may have some more. Important thing is they
did clarify.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

You don't ever have to...as the info posted from the USPS stated,
any unsolicited material is not encumbent upon the recipient in any
regard by law. You can trash it or simply write "Refused" or other
indication on it and leave it for the mailman. If somebody else takes
it instead, no problem.

Yes this is true but I get a LOT of this kind of stuff and much of it I do
order. I am therefore obligated to pay for it. If I have a bunch of bogus
products being sent to me such as this book and I have to cull through which
really needs to be paid and which does not this becomes a nuisance to me.
This is an old vendor trick played on many businesses. Send a company your
product although they did not order it and maybe they will pay for it.
While in the automotive business I often had products sent to me that I did
not order. No packing slip but the main office would receive the bill.
Fortunately our office was on the ball and matched a packing slip to EVERY
bill. Believe it or not many businesses simply pay the bill. It is
marketing at its sleaziest IMHO.

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:260520051847400346%

There is no waste involved in this example, except perhaps the
annnoying invoices being sent.

Umm, product being given away has a cost. Period.

This is a planned campaign whose cost has already been factored into
budgets.

Yes it is, the wast is factored in to the price of everything that they
market. Those that pay for the product pay for the factored in waste.

"John Flatley" wrote in message

Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you are
thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
information
before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
are
never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep productive
posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)

I've addressed the post to you but I'm really talking to everyone to
posted
to this thread.

Good suggestion. I'm hard on vendors at times, (a lot of times) but I'm also
loyal to good ones and support them. I'm also not afraid to come back and
say they did things right. This type of thing works both ways. I
received a reply from one of the top guys. He took the time to explain
things, showed I'm getting a good deal, and he has my trust. Overall, for
the past few years I've been satisfied with the content of the magazine so
I'd be reluctant to stop it and spite myself. Heck, next time I add to my
web page I may even put a link to them on it.

I've made a couple of projects they had, I've bought some products they've
featured including Rockler parts. Some time back they featured a circle
cutting jig. I built one and have used it for cutting wheels out on the
bandsaw. This is one of the benefits of WJ as well as other magazines.

Stuff happens. What separates the good guys is how they handle the problem
and come to a resolution.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter Leon - the books were bought and paid for before they
were
shipped out.

EXACTLY!

It was a marketing gamble.

EXACTLY!

Returning the book will do nothing to impact the cost of purchasing them
and shipping them out.

No, it will not. No bearing on the cost at all but the profit on the
campaign goes down as they realise it will. Sooo when deciding what price
to charge for the book they simply offer the book at a higher price across
the board to start with to make up for the ones that they speculate will not
be paid for. Those that do buy the book are also paying for the books that
are not paid for.

But you need to remember that the cost of the book is a fixed cost. The
price to you and I if we decide to buy the book is jacked up to compensate
for that percentave that they figured will not be paid for when distributed
in this maner.

The price of the book is marked up to hopefully produce a given percentage
of profit after factoring all normal costs + zero return for units uned in a
campaign such as this. Take this type campaign out of the mix and the
profit goes up per unit and maybe the price of the book goes for $8 instead
of $9.

In article , Duane Bozarth
wrote:

A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed...

It's okay to use paper... It grows on trees.

Example. The mill we buy our newsprint from has a fixed harvest area in
northern Alberta. They harvest and pulp exactly zero trees per year.
Instead, they lease rights to sawmills and buy the chips, which they
then pulp and turn into what's recognized as the highest quality
newsprint in North America.

Now, if cutting trees for lumber and using the chips for pulp offends
thee, you're definitely in the wrong newsgroup.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

In article , Leon
wrote:

Yes it is, the wast is factored in to the price of everything that they
market. Those that pay for the product pay for the factored in waste.

Waste is factored into the price of EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY f'ing
markets. Do you buy tools? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do
you buy wood? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy food?
Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy clothes? Waste is
factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy vehicles? Waste is factored
into the f'ing cost. Do you buy paint? Waste is factored into the f'ing
cost. Do you buy stain? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you
buy sandpaper? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy
toothpaste? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost. Do you buy anything
at all? Waste is factored into the f'ing cost!

Do you have a PayPal account? I'll send you a buck if you'll use it to
buy a clue about this subject.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

Mike,

I agree with your point. I was a bit off course. The first person to
'talk' to is the one that can solve the 'problem.'

That said, there is also a value to understanding the scope of a problem.
And that scope can best be determined by inter-action with a common group.
The action one takes may be different if they were the only one affected
than if they are one of a large number affected.

When a thread grows too bloated and off topic, we have step away. If we are
to find any value in these forums, we must be able to separate the wheat
from the chaff. And I have learned a lot in this forum. (and a bit about
woodworking too)

thanks for your point,

John Flatley
Jacksonville, FL.

--
"No one has ever erected a monument to a committee."



"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

"John Flatley" wrote in message
news

Consider a suggestion. Maybe the next time you suspect a problem, you
are
thinking of challenging a vendor or a practice and you want more
information
before taking the problem to the vendor; ask questions of the group. We
are
never short of answers. (opinions) Asking questions might keep
productive
posts from turning into a "bash a vendor" bitch forum. (might!)


Ohhhhh John... I have to differ. Taking this approach will only result in
the standard newsgroup feeding frenzy where folks jump in and take their
turn at bash the vendor, or bash vendors at large. The best course of
action is to always take the problem to the respective party before
taking
it to a public forum. Public forums are infinately less capable of
providing accurate answers than the agency involved. What public forums
excel at though is turning the smallest thing into some over grown,
bloated
issue. Those opinions you reference are often the most dangerous form of
the written word.

--

-Mike-

alexy wrote in
:

snip
But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.

There are social costs. Besides disposal, the dealing with the invoices,
and the wrangling over the real motivations behind the marketers, this
whole episode disrupts the calm discourse and friendly conversation which
normally occurs here on the wReck. ;-)

I mean, for example, this whole discussion distracts me from learning the
intricate details of wiring my shop for 220V.

Patriarch

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
Waste is factored into the price of EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY f'ing
markets.

I see your point, I think you are missing my point. There are hundreds of
cost factors that go in to determine the price of something you will buy.
THIS METHOD OF MARKETING however points out to the consumer one of those
"wasteful" cost factors and throws it in the consumers face. When the
buying public sees such an obvious fixable waste on an item that he may
consider buying he should be insulted to think that this type marketing has
picked him to be the dummy thinking that he will not not realise that he is
the one paying for those that do not pay.

I'll refrain from offering to sell you a clue.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

In article , Duane Bozarth
wrote:

A lotta' those useless things called trees might not have agreed...

It's okay to use paper... It grows on trees.

....

Now, if cutting trees for lumber and using the chips for pulp offends
thee, you're definitely in the wrong newsgroup.

No, what bugs me is the end use of it as simply adding (for the most
part) to the landfill or burn pile as most mass-mailings are.

"Leon" wrote:


"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
stone.ca...
Waste is factored into the price of EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY f'ing
markets.

I see your point, I think you are missing my point. There are hundreds of
cost factors that go in to determine the price of something you will buy.
THIS METHOD OF MARKETING however points out to the consumer one of those
"wasteful" cost factors and throws it in the consumers face. When the
buying public sees such an obvious fixable waste on an item that he may
consider buying he should be insulted to think that this type marketing has
picked him to be the dummy thinking that he will not not realise that he is
the one paying for those that do not pay.

Once again, you are assuming facts not in evidence. I am not saying
that you are wrong, just that I see no evidence that you are right.
Let's work a little example:

Assume that the fixed cost for the book writing, editing, graphic
design, setting up the presses, etc. is $200,000.
Assume that marginal printing cost is $5 per book (cost of paper, ink,
electricity, postage)
Assume they target 100,000 customers with their marketing campaign.

Scenario 1: wasteful (according to you) approach:
Print 100,000 books
Total cost: $200,000 + 100,000*$5 = $700,000
Hit rate from this approach 50%
Paying customers: 100,000 *.5 = 50,000
Cost per paid-for book: $14
Gross Profit if sold for $20 per book: 50,000*($20-$14)=$300,000

Scenario 2: more economical (according to you) approach:
100,000 letters sent
Hit rate from this approach 20%
20,000 books printed (NO WASTE!)
Cost: $200,000 + 20,000*$5 = $300,000
Cost per book: $15
Gross profit if sold for $25 per book: 20,000*($25-$15)=$200,000

So with the waste-free approach in this example, even if the publisher
raises the price by $5, he makes less money!

Note that I am NOT claiming that these scenarios are close to the real
thing--I am just pointing out that there is not enough info here to
accept your theory that their approach leads to higher costs for the
book buyer.

And I have a sneaky suspicion that if I were in the publishing
business, I WOULD know these costs and response rates, and would use
the approach that would generate the best return.



--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Patriarch" wrote in message
7.136...
alexy wrote in
:

snip
But it is still free to those who got it and didn't pay.

There are social costs. Besides disposal, the dealing with the invoices,
and the wrangling over the real motivations behind the marketers, this
whole episode disrupts the calm discourse and friendly conversation which
normally occurs here on the wReck. ;-)

I mean, for example, this whole discussion distracts me from learning the
intricate details of wiring my shop for 220V.


Fear not, help has arrived. Wire away with reckless abandon but just
remember to wrap the inside and the outside of your dust collector's PVC
pipes with bare wire to avoid static buildup and the inevitable explosion
and fire.

--

-Mike-

And don't forget to use food-safe finish.

A.J.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:12:51 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Rob
Johnstone wrote:

The anger, as I read the posts, sprang from the fact that WJ sent
invoices for the "no obligation" book after it was sent.

If you're sending people a free gift, great. But don't bill them for it
later. Miss Manners will back me up.

This is my gripe too. If any of the numerous invoices I've received
had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book,
not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices";
I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.

The way I feel now, I'll never resubscribe to your magazine because
your invoices are misleading as they try and give the impression that
our only options are "PAY" or "RETURN IT". I hope your book business
makes up for your lost subscribers.

If any of the numerous invoices I've received had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book, not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices"; I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.

They did not include that option because they were not invoices.

A.J.

"Gary" wrote in message
...

This is my gripe too. If any of the numerous invoices I've received
had an option that said: "I'm not returning this unsolicited book,
not paying for it and want you to stop sending me these invoices";
I'd have checked it and sent the invoice back.



You could do what I do - mail it back. No check, no check mark, certainly
no book, just an envelope full of their crap and whatever other daily junk
mail I can fit in it. In fact, one of my favorite hobbies is mailing junk
mail back to the sender in their prepaid envelopes. It doesn't help reduce
the junkmail, the senders are too stupid to get the hint, but it does give
me a satisfied feeling. For a second or two.

--
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com/woodshop