Newsletter and The Objectivist Calendars - Miscellaneous

[Ellen Stuttle]

Issues came up on some recent threads which sent me looking in "Objectivist Calendar" announcements.

There's a lot of historically interesting/useful information to be found in the Calendars. So I thought I'd start a thread for compiling various tidbits.

The next several posts quote circulation figures given at the end of the year -- October or November or December issue -- for The Objectivist. The Objectivist Newsletter didn't run such reports, maybe because it was too small in size to be required to file them. I don't know the legalities.

A statement which starts section 10 of the 1966 and 1967 reports and which I'll leave out from the material below provides a clue, if one knows -- I don't -- what the relevant sections of Title 39 say:

10. This item must be completed for all publications except those which do not carry advertising other than the publisher's own and which are named in sections 132.231, 132.232, and 132.233, Postal Manual (Sections 4355a, 4355b, and 4356 of Title 39, United States Code).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

The NOVEMBER 1966 report was the first to appear. It was preceded by this note from Barbara:

pg.15

As stated in the official notice below, the circulation of THE OBJECTIVIST has now reached 21,056 copies.

-B.B.

The figure should be 21,055, if the two figures summed to get it (5,456 and 15,599) are correct.

The Objectivist

November 1966, pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. [....]

Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 21,500. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 5,456. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 15,599. (C ) Total paid circulation: 21,056. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 87. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 21,143. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 357. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 21,500.

Single issue nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 22,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 3,108. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 16,131. (C ) Total paid circulation: 19,239. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 98. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 19,337. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 2,663. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,000.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The NOVEMBER 1967 report

The Objectivist

November 1967, pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. [....]

Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 22,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 1,183. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 16,286. (C ) Total paid circulation: 17,469. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 88. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 17,557. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,443. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,000.

Single issue nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. copies printed (Net press run): 22,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 793. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 16,643. (C ) Total paid circulation: 17,436. (D) Free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 91. (E) Total distribution (Sum of C and D): 17,527. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,473. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,000.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The OCTOBER 1968 report, the first after the Brandens/Rand split

This appeared in the issue for June 1968. The Objectivist was behind schedule.

At the bottom of pg. 1 is the announcement:

(This issue is being published in October 1968.)

There are some slight wording and punctuation changes in the format of item 10, and the introductory paragraph which I copied in post #1 is no longer included.

The Objectivist

June 1968 (published October 1968), pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. Extent and nature of circulation. Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 22,500. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 778. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 17,430. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 18,208. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 88. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 18,296. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,204. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 22,500.

Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 23,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counter sales: 458. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 20,303. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 20,761. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 90. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 20,851. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 2,149. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 23,000.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The DECEMBER 1969 report

The Objectivist

December 1969, pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. Extent and nature of circulation. Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 21,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 2,526. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 13,575. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 16,101. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 60. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 16,161. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 4,839. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 21,000.

Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 19,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counter sales: 1,185. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 14,941. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 16,126. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 43. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 16,169. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 2,831. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 19,000.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The DECEMBER 1970 report

The Objectivist

December 1970, pg. 16

[underscore added]

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION [...].

[....]

10. Extent and nature of circulation. Average No. copies each issue during preceeding 12 months: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 19,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 554. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 15,593. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 16,147. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 48. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 16,195. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 2,805. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 19,000.

Actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: (A) Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run): 20,000. (B) Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and counter sales: 612. (2) Mail Subscriptions: 15,470. (C ) Total Paid Circulation: 16,082. (D) Free Distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier or other means: 48. (E) Total Distribution (Sum of C and D): 16,130. (F) Office use, left-over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 3,870. (G) Total (Sum of E & F--should equal net press run shown in A): 20,000.

--

The Objectivist ceased publication with the September 1971 issue.

Ellen

[syrakusos]

I am astounded at the small numbers.

[Brant Gaede]

I am astounded at the small numbers.

I don't know why, but I've known these numbers since they were first published so I'm used to them however I might have felt then about why the numbers weren't higher. Idea magazines weren't big sellers and most never made any money. This one did.

Nobody was really getting rich from NBI and ancillary activities such as The Objectivist, selling books and pamphlets and the lectures, but it was NYC comfortable. I once extrapolated Barbara Branden's salary, which I now forget ($17,000?) into today's bucks and came up with like $75,000. When Nathaniel left for California he netted out $40,000 in 1968, about $200,000 today. They soon started selling lectures through Academic Associates and monthly recordings by Nathaniel ("Seminar") answering questions from guests meeting in his living room. He also got going with therapy groups and making sentence completion really work for him for his clients. That seems to have been the backbone of AA which folded shortly (1973) after Nathaniel got tired of it exactly four years later and stopped doing them. Barbara seems to have finished her novel about then and lived in NYC on the upper east side for a year or two--trying to get it published, I suspect. She came around to sit in in one of Nathaniel's therapy groups in NYC in the late summer of 1977. I was there. She was just there as his guest to see what was going on. I didn't do anything with him that weekend. In fact I had pretty much concluded my intensive one on one work with him in that group, but I continued there for four more months until it was terminated in January 1977 and he started doing his Intensives. (I'm relating all this to impart some of the on the ground flavor of that time in those years.)

--Brant

sloppy writting by me but I have to walk the dog

priorities, you know

[Jerry Biggers]

I am astounded at the small numbers.

Why?

These numbers apply only to The Objectivist (a rather unimpressive - in size - journal) and probably its predescessor, The Objectivist Newsletter, which was, well,...a newsletter.

I do not recall the numbers given for the NBI mailing list, but I think it was 60 or 80 thousand.

A much more accurate indicator of interest in Rand and Objectivism can be found in the sales of her books, both then and now..

[syrakusos]

A much more accurate indicator of interest in Rand and Objectivism can be found in the sales of her books, both then and now..

Exactly my point. I subscribed and bought back issues. My original contact came from a mail-in card, in one of her books, For the New Intellectual, most likely, but many of her books had them. And, of course, there were the NBI lectures running in major cities. And her appearances on TV and radio. I was living in Cleveland and one of the AM stations had her on a couple of times back in 1966-67. She was a hot item. Yet only 22,000 people were interested in the source of her ideas?

The newsletter was actually quite impressive, nothing to be diminished in terms of content or quality. And they offered topics not found later in the books.

It is an interesting insight into marketing. I mean we know that a successful mail campaign might get a 3% response. I have taken polls where they send you a dollar with the questionaire and a 25% to 33% response is good for that. I would have thought, given the passion, that the numbers would be closer to 100,000.

[Reidy]

Another point to remember is that much of the material found its way into the anthologies or The Psychology of Self-Esteem and made much more money for its authors than these figures suggest.

If they were printing 20,000 copies a month and almost all of them sold to subscribers, that's about $100,000 a year gross. If Rand and Branden split half that it was a good-enough living back then.

[Jerry Biggers]

It would be interesting to see comparative numbers for The Atlas Society and for the much larger ARI. Except, what numbers, for what service, woud we use? TAS has a magazine, The New Individualist, but it is published quarterly. They have a newsletter, of sorts, And of course they have a mailing list. And then there is the annual summer seminar, er, "summit." I have not attended the last two, but I have read here and elsewhere on the net, that attendance at that event has been declining.

And then there is ARI, which has a LOT more funding, and the benefit of the Ayn Rand Estate, plus an interest mail-in card in every paperback copy of all of Rand's books. TAS has no such vehicle to attract inquiring minds. Well, almost none. They did change their name to hopefully be able to capitalize on interest in the movie versions ofAtlas Shrugged - their name appears prominently in the credits. Unfortunately, the first installment did not do well at the box office, so whatever notice that TAS gains will have to be from sales of the DVDs.

Of course, both organizations have websites, but how many of those who "hit" on their sites are really interested, versus how many that are only transiently interested or visit out of animosity?.

Measuring the influence of these modern day organizations to that of NBI, 44 years ago, is a conundrum. Sort of comparing apples to oranges..

Objectivists, or fellow travelers, mayget some insiration out of reading Gary Weiss's Ayn Rand Nation, Weis is clearly an opponent of Objectivism, eespecially in its political and economic policies advocated. But the major theme of his book is that interest in and agreement with Ayn Rand's ideas is growing exponentially, and he seriously believes that what could happen is exactly the title he chose for his book - that America is fast becoming an Ayn Rand Nation.

As much as I would like,( no, love), to believe this, I think that Weiss grossly overexaggerates Ayn Rand's influence and similarly, under estimates the degree of cultural, political, and religious opposition that has not yet taken her ideas as a serious challenge. When, and if, they do suddely realize that Objectivism is a real threat to their cultural dominance, it is quite like that the degree of animosity towards Rand that we have seen in the media/interenet in the last several years, will seem trivial compared to what they would do.

[Brant Gaede]

I wouldn't worry about vicious attacks on Ayn Rand, Jerry; it's hard for her to have bad publicity that doesn't generate more interest in her and her ideas by people who go out and buy her books. It's always been that way.

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

Agreed. Somehow, the Left just doesn't get it. The more hysterical their attacks, the more interest is engendered in those would want to see if she really is as awful as they have portrayed her..

It would be different if her Leftist critics attacked what she really said. But instead, they engage in ad hominem and distortions of her actual views. Apparently, these critics think that people cannot,, or will not, read what she said.

[Brant Gaede]

Agreed. Somehow, the Left just doesn't get it. The more hysterical their attacks, the more interest is engendered in those would want to see if she really is as awful as they have portrayed her..

It would be different if her Leftist critics attacked what she really said. But instead, they engage in ad hominem and distortions of her actual views. Apparently, these critics think that people cannot,, or will not, read what she said.

In the 1960s a lot of her antagonists tried to ignore her or mentioned her only to snigger. That was somewhat effective for several decades, but she always came out of the seams, it seemed. When I was in the army getting my medical training we had an inspection conducted by a junior officer not also in Special Forces for we were temporary duty to Ft. Sam Houston from Ft. Bragg. I had all my Rand paperbacks--this was 1965--out on top of my bunk. The lieutenant gave them some attention without saying a word. But the Sergeant accompanying him who was also SF in training started telling him what he thought of Ayn Rand and it wasn't very nice. Basically, it was a snigger. He got absolutely no reaction, but I could tell the no reaction meant the officer was pissed by being lectured by a non-commissioned officer ten to 15 years his senior. The commonality I had with the officer was our age and intelligence. The books reflected intelligence so he knew I had it even if I was a kook. He had no commonality with the NCO. He may have already had some familiarity with Rand, but if not he may have then gone and got some. (He also knew the books were there to be noticed. If he hadn't gotten the lecture he might have given them his own off the cuff dismissal. So on the one hand an intelligent young enlisted man was in effect saying, "Look at this, use your brain" while the NCO was saying, "Use my brain, don't look at this." The only real question was what kind of brain the officer had. I don't know.)

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

As you can hear for yourself (see Yaron Brook talks to Reason magazine, in the ARI section), since the advent of the Obamanation, Atlas Shrugged has sold an additional

one and one-half million copies.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Some further material on SUBSCRIPTION FIGURES.

In posts 2-6, I copied the print run and sales information from The Objectivist's annual "Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation" for the years 1966-1970.

The figure I underscored, (C ), is "Total Paid Circulation." That's a sum which includes (B) (1), "Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales," and (B) (2), "Mail Subscriptions."

The Objectivst didn't make sales through "dealers and carriers" and "street vendors." However, it did make single and bulk sales of individual issues. Those figures are included in the "Total Paid Circulation."

Thus the figure which should be used as a multiplier to get a rough idea of annual income from the magazine is (B) (2), "Mail Subscriptions."

I'll do a makeshift chart listing the breakdown. Sorry, I lack the graphics skills and facilities for doing this professional-like. I'll boldface the year and the "Subscriptions" total.

The "[sic]" for 1966 is because the 2 numbers given don't add to the total given, off by 1. The error, whatever it was, is in the original.

I'll list both Average figures for the Year and Actual figures for the single issue nearest to filing date.

Average for the Year

Single/Bulk --- Subscriptions --- Total

1966 ---- 5,456 ---- 15,599 ---- 21,056 [sic]

1967 ---- 1,183 ---- 16,286 ---- 17,469

1968 ------ 778 ---- 17,430 ---- 18,208

1969 ---- 2,526 ---- 13,575 ---- 16,101

1970 ------ 554 ---- 15,593 ---- 16,147

A few points:

When Barbara said in a Calendar note preceeding the 1966 report that "the circulation of THE OBJECTIVIST has now reached 21,056 copies," this was misleading, since that figure includes Single/Bulk sales, which were reported as averaging 5,456 in 1966 -- the highest figure for any of the years a report was given. The average subscriptions increased for the next 2 years to a peak of 17,430 in 1968, the year of the break.

The figures in 1969 probably indicate reshuffling as subscriptions were cancelled or dropped and people purchsed individual copies.

The subscription total for 1970 was just about identical to that for 1966 (15,599 in 1966, 15,593 in 1970). The difference in total is accounted for by the big difference in Single/Bulk sales.

--

Single Issue Nearest to Filing

Single/Bulk --- Subscriptions --- Total

1966 ---- 3,108 ---- 16,131 ---- 19,239

1967 ------ 793 ---- 16,643 ---- 17,436

1968 ------ 458 ---- 20,303 ---- 20,761

1969 ---- 1,185 ---- 14,941 ---- 16,126

1970 ------ 612 ---- 15,470 ---- 16,082

The figure for actual subscriptions in the month just before the 1968 report, which was filed in October, is the highest of all the reported subscription figures -- 20,303.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here are PRINT RUN TOTALS.

Average for the Year

1966 ---- 21,500

1967 ---- 22,000

1968 ---- 22,500

1969 ---- 21,000

1970 ---- 19,000

Single Issue Nearest to Filing

1966 ---- 22,000

1967 ---- 22,000

1968 ---- 23,000

1969 ---- 19,000

1970 ---- 20,000

Ellen

[syrakusos]

It is pretty clear - somewhat ironic, and yet perfectly understandable - that they had no idea how to market their product. Branden was a psychologist. What they needed was a Madison Avenue person with a clear incentive to produce revenue.

[Brant Gaede]

It is pretty clear - somewhat ironic, and yet perfectly understandable - that they had no idea how to market their product. Branden was a psychologist. What they needed was a Madison Avenue person with a clear incentive to produce revenue.

We'll call this an untestable hypothesis, especially the part about "a Madison Avenue person." They made money. National Review never did.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] they had no idea how to market their product.

Now that's an incredible comment. I guess you have an idea of successful marketing which is limited to sales total. How many people do you suppose read Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" when that was publsihed?

Branden -- Nathaniel -- was a genius at marketing. Including marketing to AR some ideas re psychology which continue with bad effect today. But would there have been Objectivism as such without Nathaniel? Unlike Stephen Boydstun, who thinks that Rand could/would have published post-Atlas without Nathaniel's influence and impetus, I think that Atlas Shrugged would have been all we got, unless maybe the novel Rand had sketched but didn't write.

Ellen

PS: In case anyone wonders where I've been the last week (I did intimate that I'd be posting more on this thread).

The house wasn't struck by lightning. However, we've had a mini-scale real-life experience of what a nuclear EMP might be like. Larry estimates that the lightning discharge was about 100 feet above the house. It scrambled one electrical circuit and messed up the phone line which carries the modem input. We had electricians here for hours today putting things back into operation.

OY!

[Guyau]

Glad your house wasn’t hit and that you and Larry were not injured. On the last Friday of June, in the evening, a storm with winds up to 70 mph came through this part of the mid-South. It knocked down trees and power lines right while we were having temperature highs around 100 degrees. We lost one of our giant oaks on one side of the house. Fortunately, it fell towards the woods in the front and did not fall on our house or the neighbor’s house. Our power was out for four days. We were able to find a hotel about 40 miles south of here that still had power and a room (and pool and * ) for those days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I looked into my issues of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, but was unable to locate any subscription figures therein. Subscriptions to Objectivity in hard copy (1990–98) were 250–300. The hardcopy journal The Objective Standard records the subscription levels listed below. This journal is tailored to an Objectivist readership. Its subject matter is restricted to culture and politics. It excludes theoretical philosophy, so its topics are basically those excluded from Objectivity.

2007 / 2008 / 2010 / 2011

1,826 / 2,196 / 3,342 / 3,191

[Ellen Stuttle]

Glad your house wasn’t hit and that you and Larry were not injured.

Thanks. We're glad too! It sure was a near miss. I was in the basement when the jolt occurred. I felt as if a zap had gone through my head. Scary.

The storm which hit your area in June sounds comparable in damage results to the Nor'easter which hit New England last October 29. The latter was an early heavy snow while the deciduous trees were still mostly in leaf. The area was a mess afterward. The sound we heard all night was the crack, crack, crack of tree branches, often large ones, breaking. We had to get the roof replaced because of some oak branches which hit the house directly. We were without power for a week. Fortunately, Larry managed to get a generator the fourth day into the week and we got the sump pump connected to that. Up till then we were bailing in the basement every three-four hours. We're still recovering from some of the damage.

I'm glad your oak which came down missed your and the neighbor's houses. Sad all the same for an old oak to topple. Large old oaks are such glorious trees.

--

About subscription figures, my guess is that The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is fairly high for a journal of the type, since it has a number of libraries subscribed, but not as high as The Objective Standard.

In terms of longevity, I expect that The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, Objectivity, and The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies will be researched as important philosophic sources many, many years hence and especially in the case of the first two, important intellectual history sources as well.

Ellen