Save the Socialist Standard
- This topic has 125 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I guess Vin, your attitude is, if it isn't broke why fix it but i'm not sure our propaganda model remains fit for purpose
No, that is not my attitude and no where have I said that. I also don't believe in changing our message to suit 'people' or dumping our monthly journal because of market trends and lack of 'profitability'I thought my attitude would be clear by now: there is a lot needs fixing.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I guess Vin, your attitude is, if it isn't broke why fix it but i'm not sure our propaganda model remains fit for purpose BrianG from Glasgow Br posted this several years backQuote:Rather than pay lip service to our open-ness and internal democracy we should advertise it by having a significant discussion section or element, in our main journal, the SocialistStandard. Far from being offputting, this would be attractive to new readers and sympathisers – evidence of a organisation that is alive, and of ideas that are constantly being reviewed and renewed. Why is the Weekly Worker nowadays the most influential paper on the Left? Because it hosts opendebate and discussion. Its not just a party line. But also the role of the Party isn't just to make socialists – it also needs to try and keep them also. And that means keeping members interested, which such adevelopment would help to do.As it is now agreed to have the print-run continue, let us ask what message it is we wish to convey in the Standard…and that is not as easy as Vin, implies.Any media has a target audience it wishes to reach. I don't think we are any different. When was the last time Standard sellers attended an EDL rally, for instance? Are we intending to poach members from the left-wing? Do we reach out for a "virgin" audience, is it the environmentalists, the internationalists, trade unionists… who exactly do we aim for?We can campaign blindly, after all that is what we do with a lit stall…we contact the public indiscriminately as simply random passer-bys. Is the street stall approach versatile enough to adapt?As i said, now that we decide to go for the print run for the foreseeable future…how do we make it people-friendly?
I know we have been over this several times before, Alan, but I still don't understnad what the issue is. The Standard loses roughly £500 per year, it is popular with some members and with some members of the general public. At a cost of round about £150 per edition, the recent bequest of £300,000 to the party would keep the standard running for anouther 2000 editions or anouther166 years and 8 months.The only arguments that could possible lead to the closure of the Standard areWe cannot afford to continue doing it – we clearly canThere are not enough members to continue with production – clearly not the case, or it wouldn't be producedthe time and energy of the members producing the standard would be used for other more effective activity if the standard stopped publication – highly unlikely,, there is also a high chance that the closure of the standard would impact on morale to such an extent that it would reduce activty rather than increase it.the money could be put to better use – possibly it could, but as we have a great deal of money, we could produce the standard and use a far larger amount of money elsewhere if there was the need for it.My conclusion is that the whole arguement has been a ludicrous waste of party time and effort. If the movers of he resolution couldn't even bring themselves to support it, surely that speaks volumes.As for the demise of the printed word?https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/14/ebook-sales-continue-to-fall-nielsen-survey-uk-book-salesPerhaps Private Frazer spoke to soon!
Sorry for misinterpreting this "So we don't need to change what we say"I would add the caveat that we do need to change HOW we say it.But please identify what needs to be fixed and how it should be fixed, Vin. We do need to discuss those
And i have asked for certain details JDW.You say we only lose 500 pounds. I am guessing that figure is what i have called Peter paying Paul – a cross-subsidy from other elements of the party…branches and members and that takes money from other ventures that branches could engage in …local ads in local papers, for instance. How much comes from non-member subscriptions? I recall an old Glasgow branch meeting where VV suggests members buy their copy from Barretts to ensure they continue to stock. So even retail outlets cannot be clear cut figureIf that bequest was only used for only the Standard you are perhaps right, but tell me just how much will be spent on the premises upkeep. Once again i remind those on this thread, that i try not to isolate our problems into little boxes. We have a much wider financial drain to address.I am of mixed opinion that the Standard is a drain on members time and energy. One evening for despatch seems to be the main labour. The number of contributors to each issue is rather limited to the space permitted and one reason i favour an e-zine, we will not be discouraging submissions on the account of space. We can include a weekly poetry corner on the blog, something the Standard is reticent to do on a monthly basis.Again we can to and fro over market trends JDW, there is a general downward trend on print magazines due to fall in revenue from advertising which they survive upon and which is migrating to social media and the web. But i would rather have the stats on left-wing political magazines…is the bulk of readership print or digital…is the print bread and butter or vanity publishing and is the digital, the bread and butter or vanity? Those are the questions
Vin wrote:jondwhite wrote:The movers said "print is in terminal decline" and talked of inevitability in their supporting statement which sounds determinist (and wrong) to me.That is 'fatalism' or 'inevitablity'. you allude to. We would have no science without determinism, so let's not get it a bad name.
The supporting statement included
Quote:socialists are nothing if not realists, and will recognise the grim inevitability of a resolution like this. Print sales are in terminal decline right across the news media,The SSPC report states
Quote:Total sent through post: 911 (previous year 925)As for the annual £80k we roughly spend;£24k was spent on contesting two constituencies in 2014 Euro-elections.£15k is spent annually on council tax and use head office around thirty days a year.£12k is the net cost of the Standard after postage with some subs free or paying as little as 83p an issue.
Quote:Total sent through post: 911 (previous year 925)Report on activities in the year 2015: We produced 1200 copies each month of the Socialist Standard. The printing cost was £871 an issue, or £10,440 for the year. Postage is in addition and is particularly onerous for copies sent overseas. The 1200 copies a month are distributed as follows: Inland subscribers: 366 Inland bulk (branches): 219 Inland free (libraries, exchanges) 145 TOTAL INLAND: 730 Overseas subscribers: 73 (Europe 25, Rest of World 48) Overseas bulk (including Companion Parties): 87 Overseas singles (free): 72 TOTAL OVERSEAS:232 GRAND TOTAL: 962 In addition, 20 or so a month are sold directly to people visiting Head Office; 50 or so sent out by the Enquiries Committee in response to those who request a free 3 month trial subscription; and 30 kept back for binding and as back issues. So, we tend to have a 100 or so of each issue left over each month. Healthier than i thought with 366 subscribers even taking off an indeterminable number that are isolated members unable to obtain copies from a branch.But we should have a figure for how many of the 219 issues are sold to non-members by the branches. HO has left-overs of a 100, the branches also have unsold copies. The figure is out there in some branch report to conference but i cannot trace it.
The metrics the SS report to measure circulation are more focused on where they go than how much readers are prepared to pay. This would be considered unusual in the industry especially for prospective advertisers;subscribers (366 + 73 overseas – at any price point)copies sent (911).at most, branches are subsidising 219 but that might remain a mystery and since each issue is sold at a loss (especially to branches) anyway, its a moot point.I contacted Socialist Review for circulation but got no reply.
Back by popular demand! The Socialist Standard now can be bought in Edinburgh from Lighthouse Books (formally Wordpower Books).
Just got the latest issue of Jacobin in the post and they state in an accompanying appeal leaflet that they are aiming for sustainable 50,000 print circulation by 2020.
Quote:This would be heights unseen for an American socialist publication since the halcyon days of the Appeal to Reason. The focus of the magazine will remain consistent. Jacobin was founded with the understanding that a better world is possible and will come into being by challenging capitalism and those who profit from class society.Could SS declare a print target and how to get there in a similar way?
The ballot committee have reported results on the motion put to conference 2017
Quote:“That the print Standard be discontinued from January 2018 and the online Standard become the Party's official journal.”the motion was unamended and 11 members were in favour and 89 against. The motion was lost.I can see the need for the websites to stay, should the motion or a similar one return.http://savethesocialiststandard.tumblr.com/http://savethesocialiststandard.blogspot.com/
A further indication that there is still a demand for the print version of the Socialist Standard. Fifteen copies of the July edition went on sale in the Lime Bar Café (see above) for the very first time. I've just heard that 10 copies have been sold.
11 copies of the September edition of the Socialist Standard have been sold at the Lime Bar Café in Folkestone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.