The Shatner Revival: The Starlog Project, Starlog 199, February 1994

William Shatner never really went away, of course. Before Star Trek, he had a long and varied career that included Shakespeare and more; after Trek, he acted in other movies (Trek and non-) and even starred in another prime time television show in the 1980s called T.J. Hooker. But in the mid-1990s, Shatner came back in a way that established himself as an immortal, or at least someone who clearly was going to be around a long time.

When he launched his Tekwar books, they were always likely multimedia candidates, and this issue Starlog highlights the Greg Evigan-starring television movies (it had already been translated into comics). Before the Tek wave had gone, it would also spawn a short-lived TV series and a video game.

There are lots of actors and other creative folks who have late-career resurgences; their rediscovery by the general public generally lasts a cycle and then recedes. But Shatner’s is still going strong in 2012, having conquered TV, social media (he’s got more than 1.4 million followers on Google+), dot-com success (Priceline), and yet more books, TV series (winning two Emmys for his Denny Crane portrayal), and videos.

But, as I noted, Shatner never really left. Even during that time that I tend to think of as his wandering through the desert phase – the 1970s – he was busy with stage shows, films, animated television, game shows, and commercials. Yet for all of that, it is fair to consider his Tek success as the birth of Shatner as multimedia entrepreneur, a role that he continues to play with much success today.

Starlog #199
84 pages (including covers)
Cover price: $4.95

This month, Starlog publishes its official statement of ownership, management and circulation. The total paid circulation for the issue closest to the statement's filing deadline is listed as 265,192 (a giant increase over the previous year's 164,886), including the number of paid subscriptions of 9,350 (little changed from 9,675 in the last year). Why did Starlog’s circulation take off like that? Part of it might have been a distribution strategy by the publisher; the total copies printed was a whopping 610,000 (more than twice what it was in previous years), which means there were way more than 330,000 returns unsold from the newsstand. As wasteful as that seems, it was possibly driven by the new newsstand competition Starlog was preparing to face from upstarts Cinescape, Sci Fi Universe, and Sci Fi Channel magazine (later renamed Sci Fi Entertainment), all of which would debut later in 1994. Control of the newsstands was something Starlog Group was experienced in.

Random classified ad under the “Miscellaneous” banner: “HOLLYWOOD WILL BE KILLING OFF STAR TREK – BUT! Hollywood has read our ‘strong support’ petition letter and – Hollywood says yes! This particular letter would definitely ‘force’ them to reconsider – if they are flooded with them! Please sign this letter and mail it back now! Or Star Trek is dead. To receive yours, enclose a S.A.S.E. within an envelope to …” It does make you think Starlog should have raised its classified ad pricing for each additional exclamation point used.

The rundown: This month, the magazine breaks with its usual photographic cover treatments and runs the illustrated image from the Shatner epic Tekwar; meanwhile Nana Visitor in Bajoran garb takes over the contents page. In his Medialog column, David McDonnell reports that “There will be another Star Trek TV spinoff, also following the adventures of a spaceship, one with a smaller crew complement than the Enterprise (and including a Vulcan, a Klingon, and possibly some Next Generation characters.” Which reminds me of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode featuring Laserblast, in which Mike saves the SOL by taking on Captain Janeway’s persona (and clothing) and saying at one point, “I’m responsible for the lives of 148 crewmembers aboard this ship, 144 of which we never see.”

Michael McAvennie reviews MechWarrior, Traveller, Magic: The Gathering, and more in his Gamelog column. The Communications letters from readers include a super-long letter defending Star Trek: The Next Generation, among other letters, plus Mike Fisher’s Creature Profile featuring the Mummy. Books reviewed in Booklog include Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura, The Far Kingdoms, Majyk by Accident, Growing Up Weightless, Turning Point, The Longing Ring, The Callahan Touch, ViraVax, When True Night Falls, Harm’s Way, The Chronicles of Pern: First Fall, Down Among the Dead Men, Out of Time, Crashcourse, Shroud of Shadow, The Cygnet and the Firebird, Catfantastic III (yes, a collection of short stories featuring “tales … of magical, mutant and mundane cats" – it’s what people did before LOL cats websites), Into the Green, and The Well-Favored Man: The Tale of the Sorcerer’s Nephew. In Videolog, David Hutchison reports the latest video releases, including Highlander, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, and a Twilight Zone boxed set. And in Fan Network, there’s the usual listing of conventions and directory of Trek fan clubs and publications (including Star Fetch: The Fun Fan Magazine, published in my home state of Wisconsin).

Ian Spelling, Starlog’s go-to guy for Star Trek reporting, interviews Nana Visitor, one of the stars of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Her role of a Bajoran officer aboard the space station was originally going to go to Michelle Forbes, who portrayed Ensign Ro on Next Generation, but Forbes reportedly wanted a movie career rather than being tied to a series. So Visitor stepped in. Craig W. Chrissinger talks with Ashley McConnell, a novelizer of Quantum Leap stories. She gives some interesting insight into the how-tos of writing licensed novels, such as negotiating her contract almost by accident, or how much freedom the writer has to write the stories (a lot, in her case). And Bill Warren profiles actor John D’Aquino, who portrays Lt. Ben Krieg on seaQuest DSV. (My favorite pullquote from the issue is in the D’Aquino article: “I was such a boring kid that I would memorize TV Guide.”)

Veteran film scorer John Barry tells writer Tom Soter about his work on James Bond films, The Black Hole, Howard the Duck, and more. Soter writes:

[Barry] remembers 1986’s Howard the Duck with a shudder and a chuckle. “I had just finished Out of Africa with the same company, which wound up a hugely successful movie; it won all the Academy Awards. I got this mad phone call [from the film company, Universal Pictures] and they said, ‘It’s George Lucas’ movie,’ and I thought, ‘Well, a cartoon death wizard, a ridiculous thing, it just might be fantastic.’ So I said, ‘OK,’” Barry scored sequences without seeing the special FX, recalling that “I went blindly, with confidence, and I thought that [Lucas] was going to be taking care of all that. That never worked out. I still don’t know what happened. It was such an unbelievable disaster. And I never met George Lucas.” 

Peter Bloch-Hansen previews the TekWar telefilm. John Vester interviews the seemingly tireless Star Wars novelist Kevin J. Anderson. Joe Nazzaro takes a look at Sylvester McCoy, who recalls his work as Doctor Who. Pat Jankiewicz continues Starlog’s eternal quest to interview every person ever involved with the Trek franchise, this time talking to actor Jan Shutan, who guest starred as Scotty’s girlfriend in “The Lights of Zetar.” Tom Weaver profiles Billy Benedict, co-star of the Adventures of Captain Marvel serials in 1941. In his From the Bridge column, Kerry O’Quinn highlights Mario, a friend who explains his inspirations for pursuing a film career. Mark Phillips interviews Robert Hamner, who discusses his writing credits in Star Trek (original), Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, and others. And in his Liner Notes, editor David McDonnell lays down the law about what Starlog’s staff can and can not do for you (hint: Don’t send them your fiction stories and don’t ask them to forward a letter to your favorite actor).

“I think, for sure, all the women who came before us made a difference in how our roles were destined. I’ve been in relaionships where you’ve tried to get a man to marry you, but he’s resisting the relationship. You figure he is just not the marrying kind and you leave him. Two months later, you find out he got married to the next woman he met. That seems to be a common pattern. He needed to be comfortable with [marriage], so he could finally do it in a fresh environment. I think, maybe, in a sense, that’s what happened with Star Trek. Marina [Sirtis] and all the other women had an effect on what Terry [Farrell] and I get to do on Deep Space Nine. And I’m very grateful to them.”
–Nana Visitor, actor, interviewed by Ian Spelling, “Major Player” 

For more, click on Starlog Internet Archive Project below or visit the Starlog Project's permanent site.

Playboy Reduces Rate Base: Why It Matters -- and Why It's Good

I'd heard the news was coming for months, but it was rather funny to read the first official notice in a tweet by Hugh Hefner, founder and editor of Playboy magazine. At 3:31 pm on October 20, Hefner tweeted: "We're reducing Playboy magazine's rate base to increasingly focus on quality over quantity as we did half a century ago."


A minute later, he tweeted ("twoth"?): "Playboy continues to be the most popular, most influential men's magazine in the world with 27 foreign language editions." and then: "Playboy magazine is the flagship of a brand now recognized around the world, reaching the largest audience in its history."

So what happened? 

(Actually, I rather liked his tweet later in the day: "After 25 years as CEO at Playboy, daughter Christie is now a frequent presence on MSNBC & CNN. Makes a father proud.")

For you non-magazine-geeks, the "rate base" is the minimum number of copies sold (and subscribed) that a magazine promises to advertisers. If you say you deliver at least 1 million copies and the actual amount falls below that number, then you usually have to provide a make-good (rebate) to the advertiser. Lots of magazines have been reducing their rate bases in recent years. Newsweek did it earlier this year, and in the process revented itself a bit to play in the thought-leader place dominated by The Economist of late. Others have, too, such as TV Guide.



Mediaweek reports that Playboy is slashing its rate base by 38 percent, down to 1.5 million. Not only that: The January and February issues will be combined, as it did with the July and August issues. As an editor/publisher who had to combine his July and August, and November and December issues, I can sympathize with that (hopefully) short-term measure in these economic crisis times. But what about the rate-base drop? Don't all publishers want their circulation to be as high as possible?


Sure. If I had a magazine that could attract more than 7 million buyers, as Playboy did at its very height in the early 1970s, I could charge advertisers a market premium. But this isn't the 1970s; many magazines are in crisis, and everyone who used to buy magazines but who didn't really want to has fled to the internet. Or to Sarah Palin. But everyone who appreciates magazines -- and the number is significant, and not necessarily decreasing, as some claim -- wants a magazine they can really read, that delivers value, that brings in-depth writing and pictures to them. When Playboy is good, it is really good in that sense. When Playboy is not good in that sense, it's just another normal magazine.


I remember a copy of Playboy I bought from a used bookstore a few years ago. It was from the very late 1950s or early 1960s; I don't remember which. Either way, long before I was born. But it was a copy intended to be included in an ad kit (a package sent to lure potential advertisers), and it included a bound-in special message from the magazine boasting to advertisers that Playboy charged a relatively high cover price -- and buyers paid it -- because the magazine wasn't afraid to make its readers pay for what they get. This is part of the never-ending argument in the magazine industry over whether magazines should get their revenue primarily from advertising or from circulation; I fall in the latter category. What Playboy was really saying those many decades ago, when advertising was beginning to pour into that publishing phenomenon, was that it was going to have its cake and eat it, too: It wasn't selling the magazine cheaply to readers, and advertisers wouldn't reach those readers cheaply, either. Gotta respect a magazine that goes right for the throat like that.


So, even though publishers would almost always prefer a higher circulation, a smaller one can work for it if it sells it the right way: quality over quantity, indeed.


Playboy's stock has been rising in the past couple weeks. It's not at stratospheric levels in any way, but it's out of the danger zone, where it was earlier this year when it had to release a statement acknowledging that it was placed on notice by the stock exchange for falling below $75 million in market cap. And today, after the announced rate base cuts, the stock rose again, just a smidgeon. Some of its recent rise probably has to do with the huge amount of media attention received by the November issue of the magazine, due to its featuring cartoon character Marge Simpson on the cover (and in a PG-rated pictorial inside). But that's what covers should do: Bring people to the magazine and the brand.


And if there's a Steven King poem inside, that's just all to the better.

Shrinking Circulation: The Latest Wallops

The report last month that Newsweek magazine was considering cutting its circulation by up to 1.6 million may have sounded counter-intuitive to most people. But in these days of high printing and mailing costs and ever-heated competition from online sources, slashing the number of copies of magazines that are printed, distributed, and often just destroyed is not a crazy idea.

But yes, 1.6 million – more than half of the magazine's circulation – is a huge cut. But it follows rate cuts (which also mean reduced advertising fees for the magazine) in recent years from Playboy, Time, In Touch Weekly, Life & Style, TV Guide, and others. It's the name of the game, unfortunately.

This topic is also in my mind because today I picked up the newest issue of Starlog magazine (see my extended thoughts on Starlog's market position) and looked at the annual U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation. For those of you non-magazine folks, that's the little data report that each magazine must print once a year laying out the details of circulation and mailing, such as how many total copies are printed, how they're distributed, what percentage of circulation is paid circulation, etc. As a magazine editor, I've written up my share of these reports, and I know the Post Office is very picky about how they're filled out. It is not uncommon for them to send it back to the editor and have them correct relatively minor problems.

(Side story: About 10 years ago, I contacted the editor of a major British science fiction magazine to ask why they were calling themselves the largest SF magazine in the world when their reported circulation was clearly below that of the market leader at the time, Starlog. He replied that all they had to go on was Starlog's word in the Post Office circulation filing, and there was no way to know if that was correct. I thought then and I think now that that was a silly response, having dealt directly with these circ statements and knowing they're not just hot air.)

Starlog's average total paid circulation for the past year, as stated in this year's filing, is a mere 27,868 (or 22,863 for the most recent issue; these circ statements require both types of reporting). For the past few years, Starlog had reported nearly 100,000 circulation in both categories (even that was down dramatically from the heights in the 1990s; the March 1997 issue of Starlog lists circulation figures of 257,862 and 255,920 for those categories). In the magazine's more than 30 years of publishing such Post Office circulation statements, I've never seen it much below 100,000.

So if I obsess over this particular magazine even amidst a steep decline in print circulations throughout the industry, chalk it up to a long-standing relationship with the magazine and a desire to see it remain alive and relevant. It can.

But another challenge is the drastic changes in newsstand distribution that has resulted in vastly fewer magazines receiving good distribution (for just one example, see Wal-mart's decision last year to drop 1,000 – yes, 1,000 – titles from its stores). Distribution problems are longstanding. Back in the early 1980s, the publisher of one of my all-time favorite magazines, Future Life, wrote that "We estimate that about 25 percent of all magazines are never put onto the stands at all, but go immediately into the wholesaler's shredders." The publishers, advertisers, and readers are of course paying for those destroyed copies as part of their costs to get the remaining copies.

The answer, I still believe, will be a mixture of continued traditional distribution of printed magazines and the increased distribution of the magazines through digital means, which will allow the readers (or even innovative newsstand operators) to print out the magazines themselves and not have to pay for destroyed copies.

But until that time arrives, it's going to continue to be a brutal atmosphere for print publishers, especially smaller ones in competitive market niches. Here's to hoping they hang in there and be creative.