Jaunted

There are going to be a lot of toasts and parties this week as Torkells created a lot of enemies in his tenure at BT. He couldn't keep a staff (most people quit within the year), his editorial choices were poor and obviously he had little talent for keeping would-be advertisers happy.

In 2004, Budget Travel's circulation was 561,463.
Last year, it was 630,689.
These figures are audited and Google-able.
Given such enthusiasm, Budget Travel's editorial choices must have been OK. In contrast, most print consumer magazines in other categories (such as health or personal finance) and/or with the name "budget" in their titles saw their readerships go down--not up--during this time period.
As for ad sales revenue, there are no publicly disclosed and audited figures, only guesses, for all magazines. But I'd note that, while Budget Travel's July/August issue looks lighter in ads than a year earlier, the June issue looks heavier in ads than a year earlier. This isn't surprising. Ad sales fluctuate.
Given the word "Budget," which scares away luxury advertisers, Budget Travel has never raked in the big bucks that, say, Conde Nast Traveler (Jaunted's big sister) has. So it has had to make do with a generally smaller staff than its rival pubs. (Compare mastheads for September issues for the past few years among the major travel magazines to see proof.) Yet, despite having one arm tied behind its back (meaning: fewer resources), Budget Travel is the only travel magazine to have been nominated for ASME's general excellence award in the past few years. It must be doing something right.
Last: Please list the senior or associate editors who quit "within the year," and in which years. In short, can we have some facts?

That's a common ploy. In order to make it look like a magazine is doing well, the publisher arranges for the magazine to increase its circulation by distributing it for free to doctors offices and the like. Then with the higher circulation figures, the magazine tries to charge the advertisers more.

 And you can tell how well it's doing on advertising by how thick the magazine is. Thinner magazine, not enough sales. When Torkells took over the magazine was a good third thicker. That means it's lost at least a third of its ad sales during his tenure. Again, if you have past issues, it's absolutely clear.

As for the editorial staff: no secret there. Simply look at the length of tenure of his staffers. No one stays around very long. I don't think its fair to list their names here, but if you look at the masthead of the magazine from months past, the story is clear.

you scooped the Times, Jaunted. Nice work!

I bet that advertisers have heard of the practice of sending magazines to phantom zip codes, dentist offices, etc. And I bet that many ad shops have already learned to be suspicious of a certain percentage of circ numbers for every publication, not just BT's. But there's no evidence that BT is engaging in this practice--or that it's doing so more aggressively than its direct competitors.

With extremely few exceptions (such as Oprah and US Weekly and Vanity Fair), all print magazines are thinner now than were in 2003. Take Conde Nast Traveler, Nat Geo Traveler, and T&L issues from 2003 and compare them with today's copies. Each title's issues are smaller in their dimensions, not just their weights, to save on print paper costs. The type of paper is less glossy, too--except for Conde Nast Traveler it seems. Overall: Paper costs, postage costs, transportation costs, newsstand distributor consolidation, WalMart culling of its magazine sections, and erosion due to the Internet and other forms of entertainment--these trends have affected more publications than just Budget Travel.

Turnover is standard at most media companies. One person might leave for a book deal, which has nothing to do with the boss. Another might jet because his or her family is having a baby. Another, because he or she is moving to another country for a life change. Overall, looking at mastheads, the impression might be one of high turnover. But it would be false to conclude a management problem is to blame, no?