Sport Pilot, tha magazine.

[Deskpilot]

I was so pleased to see our magazine back in the news-agents today. Obviously, I bought one as my membership to the new RAAus Ltd lapsed some years ago so it's been a while since I last saw one. Looking forward to some catch-up reading this evening.

 

 

[Ayecapt]

:cheers:Changing the magazine to a additional subscription option might have saved money but some of the side effects are yet to be documented. In my case reading the mag online ( and i have tried ) just doesn't do it for me ! And paying the extra subscrption doesnt seem worth it. I can read the copy at the flying club but I dont.

 

Most important communication comes in by email from RAAUS . Because the mag is optional there can be no vital communication that is only just in the magazine. So if you buy it It is just for a good read as you correctly say . What concerns me just a little is the disengagement with the sport that cant realy be accounted for or documented. Anyway whats done is done , no good flogging a dead horse. Enjoy the read

 

 

[farri]

Sport Pilot returning to newsagents

 

Sport Pilot was last sold publicly in 2014. Since then, it has been available free of charge on ISSUU.com and the RAAus website, and in a hardcopy format by subscription. As at the August edition of Sport Pilot, 1 in 4 RAAus members are now subscribing to the magazine which is increasing with popularity.

 

Due to this popularity, we're pleased to announce that Sport Pilot Magazine will be returning to newsagents across the country for a trial period. 3,000 copies of Sport Pilot were distributed to newsagents around Australia in September, with the same number of October and November editions also being made available. A decision on whether or not to continue after November will be made when results of this trial are known.

 

A list of Sport Pilot stockists can be found here.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I hope it sells ok at the newsagents. With the demise of Pacific Flier there is nothing Australian in the category.

 

One problem of course is that these are hard times for magazines in general, but as long as Sportpilot nearly breaks even, the exposure should be worthwhile.

 

 

[Soleair]

The link I got from the latest RAA email missive takes me to all the Sport Pilot mags EXCEPT October. Or have I misunderestimated something?

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I downloaded October 2016 from here https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/62-october-2016-w-1.pdf

 

I got there from here Sport Pilot Magazine - RAAus

 

Have given up on downloading from issu because the download option kept disappearing even when I was logged in.

 

 

[Soleair]

Thankyou!

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and Members who do not receive the magazine are STILL massively subsidising the printed version

 

For the year ended 30 June 2016

 

1. Income from sales of magazine $150,862

 

2. cost of Printing $326,890

 

Now before I get torn a new one:

 

- the revenue INCLUDES sales of merchandise ... so overstates the magazine revenue

 

- expenses includes printing, publications and merchandise ... so overstates the cost of the pure magazine

 

But as the CEO openly admits the sales of printed mags does not cover the cost of printing and distributing them somewhere I am guessing north of $100k is being taken from members general membership fees to support the printed mag ... now with 10,000 members thats a minimum of $10 being given to the mag from your membership ,,, of another way is you are paying about $0.83 per month to NOT receive the mag. .. but as there are less than 10,000 members lets just round it up to $1 per month to not get a mag ...

 

I think I might give the board notice I want a break out of the costs of the magazine sales vs printing and distribution costs for the AGM ...

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Without knowing any figures, I signed up for the magazine after reading the "free" one and finding, a bit to my surprise, that I thought it was good. Especially the article about Jabiru and CASA.

 

It would be great if the commercial sales help things to break even. Otherwise a cheaper form of printing could be looked at.

 

In the meantime you can cash in by subscribing too.

 

 

[Downunder]

But as the CEO openly admits the sales of printed mags does not cover the cost of printing and distributing them somewhere I am guessing north of $100k is being taken from members general membership fees to support the printed mag ... now with 10,000 members thats a minimum of $10 being given to the mag from your membership ,,, of another way is you are paying about $0.83 per month to NOT receive the mag. .. but as there are less than 10,000 members lets just round it up to $1 per month to not get a mag ...

So....originally I paid $XXX and was told a good chunk of that was for the magazine to be printed and delivered to you......OK.

 

Then the magazine was removed WITHOUT a reduction in membership fees and I was told I needed to pay extra to get the magazine....... Hmmm, no thanks.(Not interested in paying for the same thing TWICE)

 

Then the membership fee was arbitrarily increased without membership consultation....and still no included paper magazine....... Right......

 

Now my membership dollars are being used to fund a magazine I don't get, don't read and have no interest in..... You've got to be joking....

 

 

[jetjr]

Yep

 

From Sat presentation, in loose numbers, break even is 3300 subscriptions, currently around 2000

 

Actual paper costs $70 pa so around $90K being spent keeping paper mag alive

 

This is 100% being done because of vocal support and management doing what was requested by members. Now the costs are being felt

 

Its an example why managers and board need to make hard decisions for the benefit of all

 

To be a bit fair, there is a benefit in paper copies to newsagents in new member promotions etc and ways to share costs with others like SAAA are being investigated

 

 

[kasper]

YepFrom Sat presentation, in loose numbers, break even is 3300 subscriptions, currently around 2000

Actual paper costs $70 pa so around $90K being spent keeping paper mag alive

 

This is 100% being done because of vocal support and management doing what was requested by members. Now the costs are being felt

 

Its an example why managers and board need to make hard decisions for the benefit of all

 

To be a bit fair, there is a benefit in paper copies to newsagents in new member promotions etc and ways to share costs with others like SAAA are being investigated

Does not compute ... if it costs $70 pa to print the paper version and we sell it at between $90 and $110 pa we are making profit from subscription 1 and we could not be supporting the printed mag at all ...

But if we are losing $90k pa on 2000 subscriptions thats $45 pa per subscription that is currently being covered from from our general money - or around $2 per issue sent out is being subsidized by us.

 

And if the marginal cost of printing and distributing the magazines 2001-3300 is $70 pa and we are only getting an average of $100 pa that $30 margin will only claw back $39,000 of the $90,000 ... so still does not compute

 

Sorry but I cannot make sense of how we break even from the current loss situation ... unless the cost of printing and distributed the next 1300 magazines is only $30 pa ... and frankly I doubt the postage costs are that low on 12 issues let along printing them

 

 

[jetjr]

Current offer price is $68/ 12 mths, this is around cost of production they indicated

 

1300 more subs needed to break even, all other numbers drawn from this

 

Sure you can work it out several ways

 

Postage will be $1 per magazine and rising again shortly, big % increase. To cost of mag

 

 

[kasper]

Current offer price is $68/ 12 mths, this is around cost of production they indicated1300 more subs needed to break even, all other numbers drawn from this

Sure you can work it out several ways

 

Postage will be $1 per magazine and rising again shortly, big % increase. To cost of mag

Sorry but no.

If we are losing $90k on 2000 subs thats an average loss per subscription of $45 ... to make up that loss per subscription over only another 1300 subscription the profit on each of those subscriptions must be $69.23 ... and I worked the average subscription not on the current discounts but on the average of the $90/$110 rates that are the current full price subscriptions for 12 issues and that would only claw back $36k of the $90k loss.

 

 

[jetjr]

Kasper argue with someone else, your last line Calc doesn't make sense

 

I'm telling you what was discussed at meeting, not my numbers and they add up

 

it was indicated the cost of magazine is $70 pa per subs

 

We are 1300 subs short of break even point

 

or - $91k

 

To break even theres -$91 K needed from general members funds to pay for this shortfall

 

To break even they need to sell another 1300 subs at current $68 or more like 910 at $100, simple stuff.

 

A waste IMO, but the board and members demanded it. Possibly the same ones here complaining about finances and losses.

 

Get payment for another 1500 copies sold via deal with SAAA and problem gone.

 

 

[kasper]

Jetjr,

 

Ok I will argue with someone else - hopefully someone on the board or exec who has the full numbers on the costs and revenue of the printed mag - please do not feel the need to reply to this.

 

\

 

However, for the general members of RAAus here is the problem I have with the numbers Jetjr reported

 

1. the current loss on the printed magazine is reported to be $91k

 

2. the current number of additional subscriptions required to break even is reported to be 1,300

 

3. simple calculation shows that $91,000/1,300 = $70

 

The calculation in 3. effectively means that to break even each of the new subscriptions needs to have a profit of $70 - not a sales price but a profit of $70.

 

Now I know about economies of scale and all that on production costs but lets be realistic with what the costs of production are likely and how much a reduction in average cost can be expected with an increase from 2,000-3,300.

 

To have a loss of $91k on 2,000 subscriptions we have a loss of $45 pa on each subscription - but if we are getting effectively $68 pa in revenue the cost per subscription is $68+$45 = $113 on average.

 

Now if we were to stop discount selling the subscriptions and sell them at the $90/$110 pa price that is per the RAAus website and assume and average revenue of the mid point being $100 pa then MAYBE I can believe that the scale increase from 2,000 to 3,300 can lower average costs by the 13% required to break even ...

 

BUT it requires all existing 2,000 sales to renew at the $100 average and the additional 1,300 to be at that average sale price ... and I it is THAT requirement to allow break even at 3,300 I am not confident that we will achieve.

 

 

[jetjr]

Don't believe anyone thinks it can break even. Those who made the decision to keep it accepted this load on membership funds

 

Was also previous board who approved this course

 

Whats needed now it either a plan to increase sales or a line in the sand for paper mag to cease

 

Looking at it differently the paper magazine is costing $91k now but told it was costing $350 K ?? or more before

 

Id have thought it more likely paper sub numbers will decrease as some get used to Online

 

 

[kasper]

Don't believe anyone thinks it can break even. Those who made the decision to keep it accepted this load on membership fundsWas also previous board who approved this course

Whats needed now it either a plan to increase sales or a line in the sand for paper mag to cease

 

Looking at it differently the paper magazine is costing $91k now but told it was costing $350 K ?? or more before

 

Id have thought it more likely paper sub numbers will decrease as some get used to Online

Hate to be the boy from the emperors new cloths but it is losing $91 on 2,000 printed issues and it was losing $350k on nearer 10,000 printed issues ... on a per subscription basis the losses are actually worse now

 

 

[jetjr]

Maybe but $91k is less than $350k........a good thing?

 

 

[kasper]

Maybe but $91k is less than $350k........a good thing?

Better but not good. Good would be saying we've tried to make it stand alone for the past year and we can't see it standing alone within the next year so let's cut the loss and end the printed mag.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I understand your reasoning kasper, but I reckon it should be given about a year to see if the figures can come good. It's really quite a good magazine and better than several other offerings at the newsagents in my biased opinion.

 

 

[Downunder]

In my opinion, RAA should have gone with a professional marketing manager before the safety manager so at least the magazine and perhaps the membership figures would be looking better by now.....

 

We may have also have been in a better financial position to actually employ a safety manager (and now I think one employee has been added to that growing empire...er.... department).

 

But I guess appeasing CASA was the first priority at the time.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon CASA should be given what they pay for and no more. To use member's money to appease CASA is a backdoor taxation.

 

So I say to charge them for information at whatever it really costs to provide it and say "NO" to freebies.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I reckon CASA should be given what they pay for and no more. To use member's money to appease CASA is a backdoor taxation.So I say to charge them for information at whatever it really costs to provide it and say "NO" to freebies.

Well I would divide that into two parts:

The first part might seem like a novel idea to some, and that's professional negotiation.

 

Even from a couple of comments made this morning, some people have no idea what CASA's obligations are, and what aviators, through their organisations, responsibilities are, but they are laid down in documentation.

 

If CASA go into a meeting and say "you have to do xyz" and you do it, and it costs your organisation $100,000 per year, but there's no statutory obligation to do it, then what an idiot are you for not knowing your obligations and not holding CASA to theirs.

 

The second part is digital.

 

If you are administering safely, you will be producing data daily and automatically, and that data can be supplied live to CASA at virtually no cost.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

CASA is NOT administering "safety". The biggest risk I take in flying is forced on me by CASA for no benefit to anybody else.

 

It has been suggested to me that mishaps to people like me are actually of benefit to CASA. Their funding depends on the politicians being continually reminded by mishaps.

 

Personally, I don't believe that there is any malevolent faction in CASA. They are just bureaucrats doing whatever they think will ingratiate them with those who provide their funding.