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
|