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