Night Sky Euthanized

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 09 Dec 2006 20:11:14
From: O. Dam Itall
Subject: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Sky & Telescope's younger sibling, Night Sky, will cease publication
this spring. While not the magazine S&T is - nor was it ever meant to
be - it made astronomy accessible to a lot of people who might
otherwise never have a clear, well written introduction to the pursuit
so many of us love.

On Friday, December 8, along with the ending of Night Sky, five more
people at New Tracke Media got sacked. According to my source, more
than 50% of the editors and employees that worked for Sky Publishing
before the sale to New Track Media have been laid off. Prior to
Friday's massacre, the most recent dismissal was publisher Susan Lit.
She is universally blamed by those in the know as causing the sale to
be necessary because of her complete lack of leadership. It only makes
sense that the new owners would toss such a poor businessperson
overboard, even though she and a few others at Sky engineered the sale
and rumour is may have been well paid for it.

It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
its former greatness. The new owners are determined, it seems, to
wring out every last dollar from the company, even at the expense of
its employees. How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?

When my subscription is up, I may not renew. After so many years of
reading and buying S&T and the books they published, I feel betrayed
somehow. Maybe if they cut the price in half I'll consider it. But
with the recent departure of Stephen O'Meara to Astronomy and the many
firings, I think the writing is on the wall.
O. Dam Itall
--------------------------------------------------
If at first you don't suceed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
< ><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Date: 09 Dec 2006 21:56:02
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:11:14 -0500, O. Dam Itall
<no.email@no.thanks.org > wrote:

>It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
>its former greatness. The new owners are determined, it seems, to
>wring out every last dollar from the company, even at the expense of
>its employees. How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
>few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?
>
>When my subscription is up, I may not renew. After so many years of
>reading and buying S&T and the books they published, I feel betrayed
>somehow. Maybe if they cut the price in half I'll consider it. But
>with the recent departure of Stephen O'Meara to Astronomy and the many
>firings, I think the writing is on the wall.

Well, you'll certainly help speed it on its way if you stop subscribing
because "the writing is on the wall".

IMO, the quality of the magazine's content is as good as it has ever
been, better than some times (and I've been a subscriber for over 30
years). I'm not going to worry too much about the internal operations of
the publisher; if the quality declines, I'll stop subscribing. But not
until.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 10 Dec 2006 18:13:20
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:11:14 -0500, O. Dam Itall
> <no.email@no.thanks.org> wrote:
>
>
>>It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
>>its former greatness. The new owners are determined, it seems, to
>>wring out every last dollar from the company, even at the expense of
>>its employees. How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
>>few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?
>>
>>When my subscription is up, I may not renew. After so many years of
>>reading and buying S&T and the books they published, I feel betrayed
>>somehow. Maybe if they cut the price in half I'll consider it. But
>>with the recent departure of Stephen O'Meara to Astronomy and the many
>>firings, I think the writing is on the wall.

S&T is a cash cow, Night Sky was not. There is already a magazine for
beginners named Astronomy and advertisers (who provide the greatest
share of the revenue) probably saw no reason to support a clone,
especially if S&T could not show an audience that did not overlap with
Astronomy. My guess would be that subscription and newsstand sales were
pretty weak.

The decision to drop Night Sky is no more than a business decision, just
the same as the dropping of CCD Astronomy. S&T can't seem to find
another niche market that pays--and don't kid yourself, if a magazine
doesn't pay, NO publisher will keep it.

Also, don't forget that several people who once wrote for Astronomy now
do so for S&T. It's a free market for freelancers.

The same sort of gloom-and-doom followed Astronomy's firing of Richard
Berry and Tom Hunt, and later Robert Burnham (twice, IIRC). IMHO it is a
better magazine with Dave Eicher at the helm than it would have been
with the others.

Bob

Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:20:46
From: Owen Brazell
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

O. Dam Itall wrote:
> Sky & Telescope's younger sibling, Night Sky, will cease publication
> this spring. While not the magazine S&T is - nor was it ever meant to
> be - it made astronomy accessible to a lot of people who might
> otherwise never have a clear, well written introduction to the pursuit
> so many of us love.
>
> On Friday, December 8, along with the ending of Night Sky, five more
> people at New Tracke Media got sacked. According to my source, more
> than 50% of the editors and employees that worked for Sky Publishing
> before the sale to New Track Media have been laid off. Prior to
> Friday's massacre, the most recent dismissal was publisher Susan Lit.
> She is universally blamed by those in the know as causing the sale to
> be necessary because of her complete lack of leadership. It only makes
> sense that the new owners would toss such a poor businessperson
> overboard, even though she and a few others at Sky engineered the sale
> and rumour is may have been well paid for it.
>
> It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
> its former greatness. The new owners are determined, it seems, to
> wring out every last dollar from the company, even at the expense of
> its employees. How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
> few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?
>
> When my subscription is up, I may not renew. After so many years of
> reading and buying S&T and the books they published, I feel betrayed
> somehow. Maybe if they cut the price in half I'll consider it. But
> with the recent departure of Stephen O'Meara to Astronomy and the many
> firings, I think the writing is on the wall.
> O. Dam Itall
> --------------------------------------------------
> If at first you don't suceed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
> <><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
There seems to be no indication of this on the S&T website, they are
still taking subs for NightSky. Where did the rumour that Steve O'Meara
going to Astronomy come from? There does not seem to be much about that
either. Of the people that were laid off was that the editors or
production staff?

Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the bunch.

Owen

Date: 10 Dec 2006 09:12:27
From:
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

O. Dam Itall wrote:
> It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
> its former greatness.

I found this statement peculiar - S&T has become progressively useless
since about 1990.

> How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
> few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?

Keep in mind that Christmas is not that big of a deal to many people -
it's just another day, as far as I'm concerned.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 07:03:45
From: AM
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

O. Dam Itall wrote:
> How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
> few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?

You obviously have never worked construction.
(well at least I got a parting gift of a turkey...)

Many many construction companies layoff right at
Christmas. Always have, always will it seems...

If it's never happened to you, feel lucky. The reality
is that it's the world most people live in on this planet.

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

Date: 10 Dec 2006 11:25:02
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:03:45 -0500, AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>O. Dam Itall wrote:
>> How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
>> few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?
>
>
>
>You obviously have never worked construction.
>(well at least I got a parting gift of a turkey...)
>
>Many many construction companies layoff right at
>Christmas. Always have, always will it seems...
>
>
>
>If it's never happened to you, feel lucky. The reality
>is that it's the world most people live in on this planet.

The calendar year ends on the 31st of December and they don't like
carrying over into the new year for reasons of accounting, pensions
and taxes.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 20:58:25
From:
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

As a complete newb, I found Night Sky to be an interesting magazine. It
often concentrated on gettng the most out of low end equipment. That
having been said, I do believe that with the emergence of websites
like cloudynights.com, magazines have struggled. Most of my information
has either come form this NG or that site.
I also subsribe to several modeling magazines like Model Railroader and
Finescale Modeler. They're nice magazines if you're interested in
pretty pictures and advertisements, but I believe that better and more
interesting information is available on the net for free. Hobby
magazines will have a very tough road ahead of them in the years to
come.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:56:44
From: Tom Polakis
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Owen Brazell wrote:
> There seems to be no indication of this on the S&T website, they are
> still taking subs for NightSky. Where did the rumour that Steve O'Meara
> going to Astronomy come from? There does not seem to be much about that
> either....

A couple weeks back, I received a letter from Dave Eicher indicating
that Steve O'Meara would be writing for Astronomy beginning in 2007.
Unless it was a good example of forgery, it appears to be true.

> Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
> in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the bunch.

Examples, Owen? Particularly in deep sky stuff, it's far better than
it ever was. With all due respect to Scotty, "Deep Sky Wonders" was it
back in the so-called glory days of S&T. Now there are typically
several features in each issue. Every time I read posts about the this
or that in the hobby not being as good as it used to be, I'm reminded
that the median age of amateur astronomers is climbing every year, and
there are more grumpy old men than ever. Other than the
ever-brightening sky, the only thing that's worse today in the hobby is
the lack of youth. But I digress. Here's a post of mine about S&T's
alleged declining quality from way back in 1997.

http://tinyurl.com/yx2wd8

Tom

Date: 11 Dec 2006 02:01:57
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:53:20
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Tom Polakis wrote:
> Examples, Owen? Particularly in deep sky stuff, it's far better than
> it ever was. With all due respect to Scotty, "Deep Sky Wonders" was it
> back in the so-called glory days of S&T. Now there are typically
> several features in each issue. Every time I read posts about the this
> or that in the hobby not being as good as it used to be, I'm reminded
> that the median age of amateur astronomers is climbing every year, and
> there are more grumpy old men than ever. Other than the
> ever-brightening sky, the only thing that's worse today in the hobby is
> the lack of youth.

I very much agree. Maybe the deep sky coverage as a fraction of the
total magazine has declined somewhat, but I think that's primarily due
to the magazine being larger, with a wider scope (if you will). The
magazine also used to go through cycles, where it would be more oriented
to beginners but become more advanced with each passing year until it
would reset again. That doesn't seem to happen anymore, so I guess if
you compared today's middle-ground with some of the peaks in the past
you might find it a bit lacking, but those peaks never lasted!

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:09:23
From: Owen Brazell
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Tom Polakis wrote:
> Owen Brazell wrote:
>
>>There seems to be no indication of this on the S&T website, they are
>>still taking subs for NightSky. Where did the rumour that Steve O'Meara
>>going to Astronomy come from? There does not seem to be much about that
>>either....
>
>
> A couple weeks back, I received a letter from Dave Eicher indicating
> that Steve O'Meara would be writing for Astronomy beginning in 2007.
> Unless it was a good example of forgery, it appears to be true.
>
>
>
>>Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
>>in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the bunch.
>
>
> Examples, Owen? Particularly in deep sky stuff, it's far better than
> it ever was. With all due respect to Scotty, "Deep Sky Wonders" was it
> back in the so-called glory days of S&T. Now there are typically
> several features in each issue. Every time I read posts about the this
> or that in the hobby not being as good as it used to be, I'm reminded
> that the median age of amateur astronomers is climbing every year, and
> there are more grumpy old men than ever. Other than the
> ever-brightening sky, the only thing that's worse today in the hobby is
> the lack of youth. But I digress. Here's a post of mine about S&T's
> alleged declining quality from way back in 1997.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yx2wd8
>
> Tom
>
Tom I am sorry but having a column by Sue French does not compare to
either the days of Houston or when Steve Gottleib et al used to write
for the magazine. If by deep sky you mean endless articles on CCD image
processing then yes it has more.

As for qality the paper is thinner. I get issues now where the printing
is blurred and the layout of articles is more difficlut with boxes
everywhere.

Yes the world is full of grumpy old men :-)

Owen

Date: 16 Dec 2006 12:58:33
From: JOHN PAZMINO
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized

TP > Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?
TP > From: "Tom Polakis" <polakisgroups@cox.net>
TP > Date: 10 Dec 2006 14:56:44 -0800
TP >
TP > Examples, Owen? Particularly in deep sky stuff, it's far better than
TP > it ever was. With all due respect to Scotty, "Deep Sky Wonders" was it
TP > back in the so-called glory days of S&T. Now there are typically
TP > several features in each issue. Every time I read posts about the this
TP > or that in the hobby not being as good as it used to be, I'm reminded
TP > that the median age of amateur astronomers is climbing every year, and
TP > there are more grumpy old men than ever. Other than the
TP > ever-brightening sky, the only thing that's worse today in the hobby is
TP > the lack of youth. But I digress. Here's a post of mine about S&T's
TP > alleged declining quality from way back in 1997.

To some degree, I agree about the hobby. However, in the
situation of New York City, things are a bit cockeyed. There is a
vigorous interest in space and astronomy that handily supports at
least three groups on Manhattan alone. The ones with the greatest
fervor and growth are the young NYSkies Astronomy Inc and the
revitalized NYC Chapter of National Space Society. Both are attracting
good attendance at their meetings, the two were the lead sponsors for
the runaway successful Allies in Space show in November, both are
recognized far beyond the City as the can-do peole for spacefaring and
astronomy support.
On the other hand, the avverage age of their members is static at
the 30s and 40s. We both get new members in the 20s and 30s and losr
some in the 60s and 70s. Neither group is equiped to handle children
or young adults. One rason is the very stringent regulation of
activities involving children in NYC and the general lack of
proper tools, apparatus, furniture, &c for junior members.
Internet for us has been a boon and vehicle for growth and
publicity. It avoided for NYSkies the cost and headaches of issuing a
paper newsletter. It communicates mainly by the NYSkies yahoogroup and
special emailings. You likely pore over the monthly NYC events I post
here; it's a service on NYSkies that otherwise without Internet would
have be printed, sotred, snailmailed, and all that.
For our NYSkies Seminar, Internet made all attendees equal in
information access and awareness. Inthe 'glory day's a meeting had to
depend on the favored person who worked in a colleg to get the astro
and space journals, had a photocopier handy to make handouts, rely on
chancy erraticly published illustrations and diagrams, noodge an
artist to make sings and flyers. Today just about anyone can do all of
these himself and bring real dialog and visuals to our Seminars.
The one feature of astronomy we fall short in is orthodox
stargazing. Our skies are, commpared to a rural club's turg, not dark.
Oh, they are the darkest of any world city and conurbation, but, no,
NYC is not on your top-ten list of darksy viewing sites.
We also lack convenient open space with good sky exposure. We
explout the city and national parks like Central Oark and Floyd
bennett Field. We avail of, where allowed, roodtops of our housing
towers (where the sky can be surprisingly star-filled).
We lack the huge telescopes of our rural neighbors, the ones
that require a U-Haul to move around and a ladder to reach the
eyepiece. Our scopes tend to be small and totable to carry on bus or
train, from the pandemic lack of cars among us.
Anyway, I haven't found anyone in the City who LOVES or WANTS
Night Sky. It is an OK magaxine but we can live quite well without it.
S&T is an other matr. Many of us have been subscribers of S&T since
the IGY, me included! It had its ups and downs but was always the best
of what vver bunch of astrozines there were in any given era. I saw
some new ones come and go, like Star & Sky, Odyssey, OMNI, Review of
Popular Astronomy. Some magazines went thru major evolution, like
SicAm and the Sciences. Some were lousy fro the start and desired to
die. Others I think had promise, only to done in by mismanagement.
Sky Publishing always was a niche publication and a one-crop
outfit. If there some calamity kills off home astronomy, Sky will
vanish within a year. It has no diversity to spread hard times over.
In all this there is one upbeat note. S&T sold off its houses on
Bay State Road in Cambridge a couple months ago. It moved into a
single larger building a short eays away, still in northern Cambridge.
AAVSO bought one of the houses, that right next foor to its own HQ on
Birch St! It moves in in early 2007.

---
� RoseReader 2.52� P005004

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Date: 10 Dec 2006 13:08:43
From:
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Owen Brazell wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
> in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the bunch.

Best of what bunch?

Just glancing over my shoulder at some current mags sitting on my
coffee table:

1. night sky, nov/dec 2006 issue
2. BBC's Sky at Night, November 2006 issue (always a month late)
3. SkyNews, Nov/Dec 2006 issue (from Canada)
4. Astronomy, Jan 2007 issue
5. SKY & TELESCOPE, Jan 2007 issue

The BBC's Sky at Night will give any of the others a serious run for
the money, plus it comes with a very featureful CD each month, too.

This month's CD has, among other things:

1. complete September TV episode of the BBC's Sky at Night
2. Moon landing lunar panoramas
3. Voyager Celestia 1.4.1 simulator (solar system and galaxy)
4. (some) unique interactive planetarium
5. Another complete TV show: voyage to the Sun in 3D
6. Saturn interactive observation viewing (something or other)
7. Photo gallery of impact craters
8. new astro freeware for PCs and Macs
9. PixInsight LE (new free image proc app for astrophoto NR)

Date: 10 Dec 2006 21:45:41
From: Pieter Litchfield
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

But just because it is good does not mean it is profitable. In fact, the
very stuff (like a CD every month) that make a publication fun or very
interesting may be the added costs that throw it into the "loss" column.

Hey - look at McDonalds. Mediocre at best, but profitable.

<thad@thadlabs.com > wrote in message
news:1165784923.252476.261550@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Owen Brazell wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
>> in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the
>> bunch.
>
> Best of what bunch?
>
> Just glancing over my shoulder at some current mags sitting on my
> coffee table:
>
> 1. night sky, nov/dec 2006 issue
> 2. BBC's Sky at Night, November 2006 issue (always a month late)
> 3. SkyNews, Nov/Dec 2006 issue (from Canada)
> 4. Astronomy, Jan 2007 issue
> 5. SKY & TELESCOPE, Jan 2007 issue
>
> The BBC's Sky at Night will give any of the others a serious run for
> the money, plus it comes with a very featureful CD each month, too.
>
> This month's CD has, among other things:
>
> 1. complete September TV episode of the BBC's Sky at Night
> 2. Moon landing lunar panoramas
> 3. Voyager Celestia 1.4.1 simulator (solar system and galaxy)
> 4. (some) unique interactive planetarium
> 5. Another complete TV show: voyage to the Sun in 3D
> 6. Saturn interactive observation viewing (something or other)
> 7. Photo gallery of impact craters
> 8. new astro freeware for PCs and Macs
> 9. PixInsight LE (new free image proc app for astrophoto NR)
>

Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:12:44
From: Owen Brazell
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

thad@thadlabs.com wrote:

> Owen Brazell wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>Anyway as noted S&T is poor comapared to what it used to be, certainly
>>in terms of Deep Sky stuff. Unfortunately it is still the best of the bunch.
>
>
> Best of what bunch?
>
> Just glancing over my shoulder at some current mags sitting on my
> coffee table:
>
> 1. night sky, nov/dec 2006 issue
> 2. BBC's Sky at Night, November 2006 issue (always a month late)
> 3. SkyNews, Nov/Dec 2006 issue (from Canada)
> 4. Astronomy, Jan 2007 issue
> 5. SKY & TELESCOPE, Jan 2007 issue
>
> The BBC's Sky at Night will give any of the others a serious run for
> the money, plus it comes with a very featureful CD each month, too.
>
> This month's CD has, among other things:
>
> 1. complete September TV episode of the BBC's Sky at Night
> 2. Moon landing lunar panoramas
> 3. Voyager Celestia 1.4.1 simulator (solar system and galaxy)
> 4. (some) unique interactive planetarium
> 5. Another complete TV show: voyage to the Sun in 3D
> 6. Saturn interactive observation viewing (something or other)
> 7. Photo gallery of impact craters
> 8. new astro freeware for PCs and Macs
> 9. PixInsight LE (new free image proc app for astrophoto NR)
>
Sky at Night is a poor magazine run as a sop to the vanity of one man.
The cover disk is a waste pf space unless you want the Sky an Night
episode on it. Most of the other material is easily available off the
net. The interviews are bad and the layout is worse. I am constantly
surprised it is stillg going.

Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:56:04
From: Mike Simmons
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

While everyone jumps all over a company when there are cuts -- ascribing
them to people who don't care about their customers -- the fact is that a
business needs to make enough money to stay alive. Making a profit would
be good as well. This isn't a volunteer effort. If the company is doing
poorly then either they make changes or go out of business. Going bust is
also bad for us loyal customers.

You mention that some of the people who lost their jobs were making poor
management decisions. This implies two things: 1) the company was being
poorly run and thus was *not* doing well, which certainly necessitates
changes (which *always* means making very difficult decisions), and 2)
they're getting rid of the right people, which implies they're making the
right decisions.

It's either a company that needs fixing that is finally getting the
attention it needs, or it was doing fine and the new owners are just going
to ruin it (for no apparent reason after a large expenditure to acquire
it). The former makes sense but the latter doesn't. Sky and Telescope is
most definitely not a cash cow (as someone put it); it's a small-time niche
publication in the world of publishing. Wringing "every last dollar from
the company" wouldn't be worth the expense of buying it and the subsequent
effort.

The fact is that virtually every print publication in the country is having
problems these days. Most ascribe that to the Internet and many are trying
to adapt but most are still having a hard time of it. The New York Times
is one example among many. Sky and Telescope may be a big deal to us but
it's still a niche publication that's going to have a very hard time in an
environment where even venerable publications with world-wide reputations
among the general populace are having historic difficulties.

I don't have all the facts so I can't (well, won't) voice an opinion. And
I'm not a business person so I can't evaluate NewTrack's decisions. But
they may just be doing what's neccesary to keep Sky alive. I hope they
succeed. I've been a subscriber for 35+ years and I intend to continue as
long as they're in business. It's still a product that's well worth the
cost for me. And they need all the subscribers they can get these days.

Mike Simmons

Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:39:17
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Mike Simmons wrote:
> While everyone jumps all over a company when there are cuts -- ascribing
> them to people who don't care about their customers -- the fact is that a
> business needs to make enough money to stay alive. Making a profit would
> be good as well. This isn't a volunteer effort. If the company is doing
> poorly then either they make changes or go out of business. Going bust is
> also bad for us loyal customers.
>
> You mention that some of the people who lost their jobs were making poor
> management decisions. This implies two things: 1) the company was being
> poorly run and thus was *not* doing well, which certainly necessitates
> changes (which *always* means making very difficult decisions), and 2)
> they're getting rid of the right people, which implies they're making the
> right decisions.

Or they were given an impossible task.

>
> It's either a company that needs fixing that is finally getting the
> attention it needs, or it was doing fine and the new owners are just going
> to ruin it (for no apparent reason after a large expenditure to acquire
> it). The former makes sense but the latter doesn't. Sky and Telescope is
> most definitely not a cash cow (as someone put it); it's a small-time niche
> publication in the world of publishing. Wringing "every last dollar from
> the company" wouldn't be worth the expense of buying it and the subsequent
> effort.

As you mention later in your post, you are not a business person. I am
the former ad manager at Astronomy. Long ago, yes, but at least I have
15 years' experience in print media.
Mike, I agree with everything else you've posted, but have to take issue
with the "no cash cow" part. Sky & Telescope has all three of the major
bases covered:
1. Advertising rates are set by cost-per-thousand readers, which is a
magic formula that accounts for both internal and external realities. In
short, how much you need and how much the competition is charging.
Usually the former is more important for S&T because even though S&T's
circulation is lower than Astronomy's, its audience of mid-to-high level
astronomers is prime and very loyal so there's no need for the magazine
to discount to attract advertisers. Advertisers have told me over the
years that their response from S&T is consistently better than from
Astronomy, although both are profitable. See the listing of advertisers
and compare it to Astronomy's, or just heft the two side-by-side.
2. Those loyal readers renew at an extremely high rate, better than 90%,
which means that the expense of replacing them is relatively low.
Astronomy's renewal rate is high also; I don't know which is higher.
Mass circulation magazines can drop below 60, 50 or even 40% renewals,
which means a huge expense to maintain circulation and therefore ad
revenue. See "CPM" above.
3. S&T's subscription price is also relatively high. They dominate
astronomy clubs and this is also the only area where they discount, but
it gives them a high quality audience. Otherwise, they get full price
for their subscriptions. No "save 75% by subscribing" here.

To summarize, S&T gets high renewal at full rates from a very high
quality readership, along with full-price ad revenue. Niche or not,
that's a cash cow.

> The fact is that virtually every print publication in the country is having
> problems these days. Most ascribe that to the Internet and many are trying
> to adapt but most are still having a hard time of it. The New York Times
> is one example among many. Sky and Telescope may be a big deal to us but
> it's still a niche publication that's going to have a very hard time in an
> environment where even venerable publications with world-wide reputations
> among the general populace are having historic difficulties.

Interesting point, but I wonder if a niche publication will be affected
by the Internet as greatly as a mass market one. You can get general
news anywhere, even blogs get it right sometimes, but hobby news
coverage is much less thorough. Still, time will tell.

>
> I don't have all the facts so I can't (well, won't) voice an opinion. And
> I'm not a business person so I can't evaluate NewTrack's decisions. But
> they may just be doing what's neccesary to keep Sky alive. I hope they
> succeed. I've been a subscriber for 35+ years and I intend to continue as
> long as they're in business. It's still a product that's well worth the
> cost for me. And they need all the subscribers they can get these days.

I like S&T also, having been in this game for 40+ years. I compare it to
Fine Woodworking, a quality niche pub if ever there was one.

Bob

Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:19:45
From: Mike Simmons
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Hi Bob,

> Mike Simmons wrote:
>> While everyone jumps all over a company when there are cuts -- ascribing
>> them to people who don't care about their customers -- the fact is that a
>> business needs to make enough money to stay alive. Making a profit would
>> be good as well. This isn't a volunteer effort. If the company is doing
>> poorly then either they make changes or go out of business. Going bust is
>> also bad for us loyal customers.
>>
>> You mention that some of the people who lost their jobs were making poor
>> management decisions. This implies two things: 1) the company was being
>> poorly run and thus was *not* doing well, which certainly necessitates
>> changes (which *always* means making very difficult decisions), and 2)
>> they're getting rid of the right people, which implies they're making the
>> right decisions.
>
> Or they were given an impossible task.

Yes, definitely a possibility. I can only say that unless it's known to be
impossible then you have to try something different. I believe there is
more to the decisions than that but won't go into it more here.

>> It's either a company that needs fixing that is finally getting the
>> attention it needs, or it was doing fine and the new owners are just going
>> to ruin it (for no apparent reason after a large expenditure to acquire
>> it). The former makes sense but the latter doesn't. Sky and Telescope is
>> most definitely not a cash cow (as someone put it); it's a small-time niche
>> publication in the world of publishing. Wringing "every last dollar from
>> the company" wouldn't be worth the expense of buying it and the subsequent
>> effort.
>
> As you mention later in your post, you are not a business person. I am
> the former ad manager at Astronomy. Long ago, yes, but at least I have
> 15 years' experience in print media.
> Mike, I agree with everything else you've posted, but have to take issue
> with the "no cash cow" part. Sky & Telescope has all three of the major
> bases covered:

...Good tutorial snipped for brevity...

> To summarize, S&T gets high renewal at full rates from a very high
> quality readership, along with full-price ad revenue. Niche or not,
> that's a cash cow.

Thanks for the insight, Bob. My comment was from a more naive standpoint
knowing that Sky hasn't been doing well for some time now. I see its
potential -- and am even more optimistic based on what you've told me --
but the bottom line just hasn't been good lately. That tells me that new
direction really is needed to keep this cow producing the cash it should
for the benefit of all of us. I don't happen to mind how much profit the
owners may make as long as we're getting the product we want at a price
that's reasonable.

>> The fact is that virtually every print publication in the country is having
>> problems these days. Most ascribe that to the Internet and many are trying
>> to adapt but most are still having a hard time of it. The New York Times
>> is one example among many. Sky and Telescope may be a big deal to us but
>> it's still a niche publication that's going to have a very hard time in an
>> environment where even venerable publications with world-wide reputations
>> among the general populace are having historic difficulties.
>
> Interesting point, but I wonder if a niche publication will be affected
> by the Internet as greatly as a mass market one. You can get general
> news anywhere, even blogs get it right sometimes, but hobby news
> coverage is much less thorough. Still, time will tell.

I would think niches would be even better served by the Internet. One or
two publications can't cover everything in a hobby, and web sites have
become increasingly important for the many aspects of the hobby that aren't
well covered in print. I do get general news from the web but mostly for
news that I can't get from my local paper, such as international
publications. But for astronomy I use the web a lot for observing
information, product reviews and other information that's just not part of
the print mags. The niches of the niche, I guess.<g > And us hobbyists
like the web to interact, which a magazine can't provide. But as you say,
time will tell.

>> I don't have all the facts so I can't (well, won't) voice an opinion. And
>> I'm not a business person so I can't evaluate NewTrack's decisions. But
>> they may just be doing what's neccesary to keep Sky alive. I hope they
>> succeed. I've been a subscriber for 35+ years and I intend to continue as
>> long as they're in business. It's still a product that's well worth the
>> cost for me. And they need all the subscribers they can get these days.
>
> I like S&T also, having been in this game for 40+ years. I compare it to
> Fine Woodworking, a quality niche pub if ever there was one.
>
> Bob

Mike

Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:02:56
From: Bob Schmall
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Mike Simmons wrote:

>
> Yes, definitely a possibility. I can only say that unless it's known to be
> impossible then you have to try something different. I believe there is
> more to the decisions than that but won't go into it more here.

Hmmmm...you make me curiouser.

I don't happen to mind how much profit the
> owners may make as long as we're getting the product we want at a price
> that's reasonable.

Word.

Bob

Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:42:29
From: Mike Simmons
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:02:56 GMT, Bob Schmall wrote:

> Mike Simmons wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, definitely a possibility. I can only say that unless it's known to be
>> impossible then you have to try something different. I believe there is
>> more to the decisions than that but won't go into it more here.
>
> Hmmmm...you make me curiouser.

I didn't mean to imply that I have any special insight, Bob. I don't.
Just speculation as to what might be going on, which I don't like to post
in a forum like this. Odd behavior for s.a.a., I know, but I'm funny that
way. But decisions that some find unfathomable are usually not hard to
understand when you have all the facts. I suspect the original poster's
speculation (and some others here) falls into that category.

Mike Simmons

Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:14:14
From: Tom Polakis
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Owen Brazell wrote:

> Tom I am sorry but having a column by Sue French does not compare to
> either the days of Houston or when Steve Gottleib et al used to write
> for the magazine. If by deep sky you mean endless articles on CCD image
> processing then yes it has more.

Owen,

I accept your apology, but I will duck as I point out that perhaps
Sue's column is more interesting than Scotty's. Scotty was the
pioneer, and you can't replace that, but I find Sue's observations to
be more inspiring. Will she be able to keep it up for another couple
decades, though?

I meant visual deep-sky observing. Compare the coverage of a 2006
issue with one from, say, 1996 or 1986. How many articles per year
did Steve G. write for S&T at his peak?

Tom
(not quite grumpy yet)

Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:43:47
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:05:54
From:
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Hello, everyone. This is Rick Fienberg, editor in chief of Sky &
Telescope magazine. There's a lot of speculation on this newsgroup
about goings-on at Sky Publishing, so I thought I'd better jump in and
set the record straight. My colleague J. Kelly Beatty and I just posted
the following announcement on our website, SkyTonight.com:

"Sky Publishing has decided to stop producing Night Sky, its bimonthly
magazine for beginning amateur astronomers. The next issue, appearing
in February and dated March/April 2007, will be the last. We are no
longer accepting new orders for Night Sky. More information about the
disposition of existing subscriptions will be available shortly.

"We launched Night Sky in May/June 2004 to serve entry-level stargazers
who want to enjoy and explore the heavens but who find Sky & Telescope
too advanced for their needs. Apparently, there aren't as many of these
folks as we thought -- at least, not enough of them prepared to buy a
magazine like Night Sky.

"Sky Publishing was acquired by New Track Media in February 2006. NTM
chief executive officer Stephen J. Kent explains, 'We decided to wind
down Night Sky because it never gained traction in the marketplace.
Despite three years of aggressive subscription and newsstand marketing,
the magazine showed no sign of becoming profitable. I'm as disappointed
as anybody, because it's a terrific product.' Kent adds, 'We'll enhance
and improve the editorial mix in Sky & Telescope and on our website to
make sure we continue to serve amateur astronomers of all levels.'

"Launching a new magazine is always a gamble. According to Samir A.
Husni, chair of the journalism department at the University of
Mississippi and a leading analyst of the magazine industry, 60% of new
magazines fail in their first year, 80% fail by their fourth year, and
90% are gone within 10 years. Sky & Telescope, founded in November
1941, is now in its 66th year of continuous publication."

Ordinarily, we'd leave it at that. But I'd also like to make a few
additional comments to address the rumors and innuendo circulating here
and in other online forums.

Yes, we laid off five people last week. That's what happens when you
close down an unprofitable part of your business. It was very painful,
but sadly necessary. Four of the layoffs were associated with the
closure of Night Sky, and one with cutbacks in our book-publishing
business, which has also been struggling lately. The affected employees
are sharing the news with friends and associates as they see fit; I
don't think it would be appropriate for me to list their names here.

No, President/publisher Susan B. Lit was not dismissed; she decided to
leave on her own. Over the past six years she led the conversion of Sky
Publishing from a mom-and-pop operation to an enterprise worthy of
becoming the foundation of New Track Media, but with that accomplished,
she was no longer in charge. Not surprisingly for someone who had risen
to the level of CEO, she decided to look elsewhere for new
opportunities to apply her considerable knowledge and skills.

Yes, Stephen James O'Meara will now be writing regularly for Astronomy
rather than Sky & Telescope. I'd tell you why he made this change if I
knew, but I don't. One day he told us he didn't want to write his
column for us anymore, and the next day we heard that he will be
writing for the competition. I don't know what prompted this, and Steve
won't tell me. All speculation voiced online to date is just that:
speculation.

As far as Sky & Telescope is concerned, the only "writing on the wall"
says that New Track Media is firmly committed to maintaining its
flagship publication's leadership in the astronomy-magazine
marketplace. Yes, we'll be doing some things differently, but all in
the interest of operating more efficiently (to keep costs down and
avoid having to raise the price you pay) and providing a better
experience for our readers/customers.

I'm not going to dignify with a response those parts of O. Dam Itall's
message that are nothing more than baseless speculation and outright
falsehoods. I will say only this: It doesn't take much courage to make
an anonymous post.

Thanks for this opportunity to clarify a few things. Feel free to post
your comments here (I'll be back to read them over the next few days),
and/or you can send e-mail to me directly at
rfienberg@SkyandTelescope.com.

-- Rick Fienberg, Editor in Chief, Sky & Telescope

On Dec 9, 8:11 pm, O. Dam Itall <no.em...@no.thanks.org > wrote:
> Sky & Telescope's younger sibling, Night Sky, will cease publication
> this spring. While not the magazine S&T is - nor was it ever meant to
> be - it made astronomy accessible to a lot of people who might
> otherwise never have a clear, well written introduction to the pursuit
> so many of us love.
>
> On Friday, December 8, along with the ending of Night Sky, five more
> people at New Tracke Media got sacked. According to my source, more
> than 50% of the editors and employees that worked for Sky Publishing
> before the sale to New Track Media have been laid off. Prior to
> Friday's massacre, the most recent dismissal was publisher Susan Lit.
> She is universally blamed by those in the know as causing the sale to
> be necessary because of her complete lack of leadership. It only makes
> sense that the new owners would toss such a poor businessperson
> overboard, even though she and a few others at Sky engineered the sale
> and rumour is may have been well paid for it.
>
> It is probably only a matter of time before S&T becomes a shadow of
> its former greatness. The new owners are determined, it seems, to
> wring out every last dollar from the company, even at the expense of
> its employees. How caring could they be - sacking five people just a
> few weeks before Christmas? Couldn't it wait until January?
>
> When my subscription is up, I may not renew. After so many years of
> reading and buying S&T and the books they published, I feel betrayed
> somehow. Maybe if they cut the price in half I'll consider it. But
> with the recent departure of Stephen O'Meara to Astronomy and the many
> firings, I think the writing is on the wall.
> O. Dam Itall
> --------------------------------------------------
> If at first you don't suceed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
> <><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:41:06
From:
Subject: Re: Night Sky Euthanized - S&T Next?

Owen Brazell wrote:
> [...]
> Sky at Night is a poor magazine run as a sop to the vanity of one man.

Why does the waistband of his trousers reach up to under his armpits?