Gadianton wrote:It was right there:Not only will the journal be renamed but, over the relatively near short-term, we will be reworking our websites in order to reflect that new name. This will be done, of course, with the least possible disruption to our thousands of subscribers and readers.
"and readers". hmm...
Now that you've brought it up I'm very curious how many have paid that 50$.
You probably noticed that the Dean did not supply a link to the quote that describes "thousands of subscribers and readers." For readers who are unaware of what he's referring to, it's this post from January of this year on "Sic et Non," announcing Interpreter's adjustment to President Nelson's request that people no longer use the term "Mormon."
"Thousands of subscribers and readers," eh? Too bad for Dr. Peterson, Lemmie has consulted with IRS documents, which portray the matter in a very different light:
Lemmie wrote:In the 990s the Interpreter Foundation has to file, the revenue is broken down into categories, one of which is "subscriptions and royalties."
The most recent 990 is for 2017, in which that category brought in $6798, down from $9059 in 2016, and $8985 in 2015.
At $50 a subscription, that's about 135, or between one and two TENTHS of a thousand of subscribers in 2017.
Quite interesting! According to Lemmie's calculations, "Interpreter" only has *135* total subscribers! Wow! First--LOL! And second, what are we supposed to make of this apparent discrepancy? Let's take this apart piece by piece.
For starters, in his initial quote (i.e., the one alleging "thousands of subscribers and readers"), there are several explanations that come to mind. It could be that DCP hasn't the slightest clue what the numbers are like, and he was just throwing that number out there--not necessarily boasting, exactly. It may be that he really thinks that "Interpreter" has "thousands" of subscribers. He's stated publicly that he cannot stand to even look at IRS documents; it could be that he's totally in the dark and doesn't know anything about the "journal"'s circulation numbers. That's probably the most generous reading, even if, at base, it's not very flattering. (I.e., If this is true, it says a lot about DCP's work ethic, and about his regard for actual facts, along with his willingness to go blundering into a public setting--such as his own blog--to relay inaccurate information to his audience. Naw...he wouldn't do that, would he?)
A perhaps simpler and somewhat more cynical reading is that he was simply lying. In this scenario, he knows that pretty much nobody reads "Interpreter," but he'd be a fool to admit that publicly, right? So, he "exaggerates" a little. Pinnochio's nose eventually went back to normal, right? You get the idea.
There are other possibilities, too. It could be that he still had the old FARMS Review figures in mind, and that the Maxwell Institute still enjoys an audience of "thousands," and Peterson, in his unrelenting "rage," is still mad after all these years and is inadvertently conflating the two institutions' numbers in his mind.
Yet another possibility is that he is either accidentally or purposefully exploiting the ambiguity in the sentence: "thousands of subscribers and readers." What if there are 135 subscribers, but 4500 readers? Sure: that adds up to "thousands." But the difference matters, doesn't it? A "subscriber" is someone who has made a commitment. If you "subscribe" to something, you probably had to give something up, such as money. A reader, on the other hand, might have clicked over to the blog simply to read comments, or scan through an abstract. "Readers," presumably, includes *everyone*, including the people on this board to bother to read the material on "Interpreter." Surely those readers are not the same as "subscribers," even to DCP. My point being: if mere readers are being used to inflate the numbers...well, then: that seems a little dishonest. At minimum, it is creating confusion and seems, in the final analysis, inaccurate.
All that said, I think we need to pay attention to the data that Lemmie has presented. Her figure of *135* subscribers is, unless I am mistaken, the *maximum* number of people who've "thrown in." Realistically, the number of true "subscribers" is likely a lot lower. Remember: the phrase on the IRS form is "subscriptions and royalties." Does "Mormon Interpreter" collect any royalties? If so, you have to deduct that from the total before you attempt to calculate the "subscribers." Plus, knowing the sorts of tools that these guys are, what do you want to bet that, like, half of the "subscribers" are people who are directly involved with Interpreter? (Or do they get free "contributor's copies, which would cut into the budget?) The only real benefit that I can see to being a paying "subscriber" is that you get an actual, bound copy of the blog posts (which are free to anyone who wants them). Thus, the "benefit" (as it were) is primarily cosmetic. Still, there are something like 50 or so people who do various things for Interpreter, and it wouldn't surprise me if all of them are "subscribers." Bearing that it mind, it may very well be that "Mormon Interpreter" has only 45-50 true "subscribers"--and by that I mean actual, fully-invested people who are legitimate "outsiders"--the proverbial "Sister in Parowan," so to speak. Think about that for a second: Mormon Interpreter might only have 45 "true" subscribers.... If that is true, it is simultaneously sad and hilarious, and it would also be the most explosive thing we've learned in a long, long time about Mopologetics.
Oh, and one other thing: according to the information Lemmie cited, the Mopologists' readership is shrinking.