Michael Glover <[log in to unmask]> who was Editorial Consultant of the
International Piano Quarterly, which has just been axed by Gramophone's
new owners, has agreed to allow this message to be posted to the MCML.

   As has already been mentioned, Gramophone's new owners, Haymarket
   Publications, have axed the International Piano Quarterly (of which
   I was the Editorial Consultant).  I am as yet unclear about the
   precise reasons for the abrupt closure; at the time that Gramophone
   was sold by the Pollard brothers a few months ago, an audit indicated
   that IPQ was profitable.  (Obviously, IPQ shared most of its resources
   with Gramophone and, in allocating costs, three accountants could
   come up with three different views of P/L.) What is undeniable is
   that, since its inception in Autumn of 1997, the magazine had quickly
   built up a global circulation of around 10,000; it also had the
   fastest growing readership of any of Gramophone's quarterlies.  The
   shocked responses I have received from many parties (readers, musicians,
   writers, record companies) since news of the closure circulated would
   indicate that the magazine had also established a reputation for
   quality and, certainly, quality was the editorial mantra from the
   start; IPQ's widely respected editor, Harriet Smith, worked tirelessly
   to maintain the highest standards in a market-place that is dominated
   by dumbing down and dilution.

   It is particularly disturbing that Haymarket should have chosen to
   axe the magazine with immediate effect, when the Winter 1999 edition
   was already two thirds complete - major articles on Cziffra and
   Cherkassky, a Cziffra discography, a comprehensive survey of the
   Beethoven Fourth on record plus several articles and reviews will
   now go to waste.

   However, I do hold out some hope that Haymarket, newcomers to classical
   music publishing, might be persuaded to reverse their decision if
   they were sufficiently impressed by the weight of public responses
   to the move and, in particular, by the impact the negative reaction
   might have on Gramophone itself.  If any newsgroup readers would care
   to do so, please feel free to make your views known to the following
   two senior Haymarket managers:

   Eric Verdon-Roe, Managing Director of Haymarket
   [log in to unmask]

   Kevin Costello, Publishing Director of Haymarket
   [log in to unmask]

   Rupert Heseltine, Associate Publisher of Gramophone
   [log in to unmask]

Follow-up posting sent 4th November

   I received a call last evening from Eric Verdon-Roe, Managing Director
   of Haymarket Publications.  It was very decent of Mr Verdon-Roe to
   do this but, needless to say, we remained very far apart on the axing
   of IPQ.  Mr Verdon-Roe explained that his accountants had costed IPQ
   last week and come up with the conclusion that it was losing money
   based, it would appear, on a new set of allocations of costs of the
   relevant Gramophone departments to IPQ.  (I asked to see this latest
   financial analysis but was told that the information was confidential;
   as mentioned previously, the magazine was found to be in the black
   at the time of Gramophone's sale.)

   Even if IPQ were thought to be losing money by the accounting
   methodology favoured by Haymarket, the decision to axe it would still
   be far from a direct one (and a decision to axe it when the current
   edition is two thirds complete could not be viewed as anything but
   destructive and grievously heavy-handed).  The magazine is one of
   a spread of titles published by Gramophone and the combination of
   synergies and niches (financial, editorial and in terms of readers
   and advertisers) means that any attempt at costing individual titles
   will ultimately be arbitrary.  For this reason, such decisions need
   to be made on a "big picture" basis:  Gramophone Publications Limited
   is profitable and IPQ, as one of its titles, has quickly come to be
   perceived globally as a beacon of quality, catering to a more specialist
   readership and serving an important purpose in furthering the study
   of the art of the piano.  It had already established a strong and
   loyal subscriber base and, in spite of an often hapless marketing
   effort by Gramophone (some may remember that the first issue only
   appeared in the States by accident, whilst the current issue has been
   almost impossible to find in New York), was selling out in shops; it
   had the fastest growing circulation of any of the quarterlies and
   was the only title of its kind in the world (the potential for
   sustained and sizeable further growth was clear.)

   Tough decisions do need to be made when performance is poor and there
   is no realistic potential for improvement.  In the case of IOC, for
   example, circulation and advertising were dwindling, given competition
   from other specialist opera titles and a wider overlap with Gramophone
   itself, and possible closure had been on the cards for some time.
   The situation with IPQ could not be more different.

   Not a word of warning was given by Haymarket to anyone involved that
   IPQ was not attaining the financial results they desired; had the
   new owners decided that substantially greater revenue were needed
   to assure the magazine's future (which none of us had believed was
   uncertain up to this point), a target circulation number and date
   could have been given for increased revenue and I believe that the
   efforts of IPQ's contributors, readers (who have shown enormous
   loyalty and enthusiasm for the title) and a more concerted marketing
   effort from Gramophone could have generated a very considerable
   increase in readership.

   However, I am convinced that the quarterlies were regarded as unwelcome
   distractions by Haymarket, who wish to concentrate all their efforts
   on Gramophone itself.  Part of the reason for the creation of the
   quarterlies was the realisation that Gramophone could not be all
   things to all people and this ties in with my comment above about
   decisions needing to be made on a "big picture" basis, with regard
   to the overall mission of the firm and the way each of its titles is
   (or is not) supporting that mission.  The owner of a publishing
   venture such as Gramophone cannot vaunt "quality" as paramount in
   one of its titles whilst ruthlessly destroying it elsewhere; quality
   is a fundamental value - a commitment and motivation - rather than
   a marketing badge that can be worn when desired.

John G. Deacon
Home page: www.ctv.es/USERS/j.deacon