The MAD Paid-Circulation Graph
The chart below shows MAD’s paid circulation over the past 5 decades (as reported by the magazine itself, and collected by MAD’s unofficial, but trusted, Keeper-of-the-Stats, Mike Slaubaugh). There are several interesting things on this chart, which I’ve labelled A through D, in red:
Letter A. There’s a theory in the MAD Community that the magazine was mainly a phenomenon of the Baby Boom Generation (those born between 1946 and 1964). Thus, the reasoning goes, the main “cause” of the declining readership of MAD was NOT (as I’ve argued) its failure to “change with the times” but merely the aging of the Boomers into adulthood, and right out of the core MAD-reading demographic. I don’t like this theory; it seems defeatist to me (and like an excuse for not having changed) — but, looking at this chart, it’s hard to dispute it. See, the year 1974 (”A”), when MAD reached its peak circulation of 2.1 million, also happens to be the 20th anniversary of the Median & Most-Populous Year of Baby Boomers, 1954 (which I happen to know because it includes ME, and I did indeed turn 20 years old, so the math works out fine!). The upshot of this “Median year”-business is, before 1974, the number of Baby Boomers Under Age 20 (available as MAD readers) INCREASED every year; after 1974, that number only DECREASED. The dramatic up-&-down plot of the MAD-circulation graph mirrors the entire Boomer Generation’s own movement through the pre-teen and teenage years. (And, don’t forget: despite the perennial hype about the size of the Baby Boom generation, it has long since been numerically eclipsed by both Gen-X and Gen-Y. Where are all of THEM on this graph?)
Letter B. Just look at that trend-line from, say 1979 to 1984! Wow! The then-editors must’ve been shitting their pants on a regular basis — losing fully HALF of their readers in 5 years! The most obvious cause, in addition to very last of the Boomers leaving their Teen years, is VIDEO GAMES. Specifically, Arcade Video Games - which ate up many a quarter otherwise destined to buy a copy of MAD. (But I would add another possible cause: the shifting of American Humor during this time toward the more raunchy, more ironic & conceptual, and more “biting” and rough — leaving relatively-mild & straightforward “MAD-style” Humor in the dust.)
Letter C. What’s this? A little uptick in circulation, maybe signaling a reversal of the general downward trend? Oop — false alarm. Resume the shitting of pants!
(Notice also, to the right of “C”: the years 1993/1994 - the birth of the Internet-as-we-know-it (not its “Arpa-Net“-ish precursors). What was MAD’s circulation then? Under 500,000, down from its 2.1 million peak. Hmm. So much for the argument that it’s the Internet that killed MAD. It had already lost 75% of its readers before the Net was even a twinkle in the eye of its father, Al Gore!)
Letter D. Now here’s the real mystery: the circulation plateau of about 200,000 from 2000 to 2007. Who are these people? (Whoever they are, 30,000 of ‘em just disappeared in the last year!) I’m sure that some of the 200,000 were “never-left” adult MAD readers (whom I personally know to exist: one was my family doctor in Nevada; another is a helicopter reporter for a major-market NBC-affiliate; yet another is a big political consultant in his 50s). And then there are the children (or grandchildren? Gulp!) of former MAD readers, enticed (badgered?) by their elders into reading it. But surely there MUST be at least some Gen-Y or “Millenial”-readers with no existing “family connection” to MAD who were somehow LURED IN by the magazine itself. Ah, THESE are the readers that must be captured, and studied, and replicated in a laboratory — quickly! — for MAD to have any chance of surviving past next year.
Let this crappy publication die already. MAD used to be cool, now it’s another part of the MSM with its nose firmly planted in Obama’s ass.
I respectfully disagree. Although MAD does have its issues (no pun intended), I still find it entertaining, even after subscribing for twenty years. Occasionally (and infuriatingly), the magazine has an article that echoes the humor of the past and makes me laugh out loud.
Plus, my subscription is paid up through March of 2010.
“Let this crappy publication die already. MAD used to be cool, now it’s another part of the MSM with its nose firmly planted in Obama’s ass.”
Gosh! I hope it’s not one of those bulbous Don Edwing noses. Poor Obama!
o4PRb18DHnlKC
Could it be that youngsters are virtually unaware of the existence of this magazine? I am 19, and had I not been fortunate enough to have found a stack of issues at a yardsale as a child, I would be more or less unaware… I have lots of the old paperbacks, but the magazine would never have caught my eye otherwise.
Where’s the marketing? Where’s the incentive? ‘Mad Magazine’ still has the potential to be “cool” to younger audiences, but they have to be introduced to it first…
I agree with your assessment so far as Letter A goes, but split with you from there.
By the late ’70s, I think, MAD was experiencing erosion not in available readers, but in available markets.
Dial B for Blog claims that hard winters in 1977 and 1978 hit comics distribution hard (http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/252/). I’m not sure I buy that. On your chart it’s 1979 when the plummet at MAD really beings to pick up steam.
As I recall, 1979 was the year direct distribution really got off the ground in comics. That system is credited with saving comics from a collapsing method of newsstand distribution. If comics were hurting then, I think it’s safe to assuem the same was true of MAD, for the same reasons.
I suspect the root was not video games and tv, neither stopped me from buying comics, but changes in the economy. It was around this when chain stores really began to eclipse mom and pop corner markets, and when small regional chains got swallowed by larger national ones.
In the end, there were fewer places selling both comics and MAD, and fewer places that might willing to give floor space to items that took up a lot of room per penny of return.
As I recall, LaVerdiere’s drug stores carried comics, and MAD, but 7-11’s and Rite-Aids did not. I could still find comics at the Big Apple stores for a time, but MAD was only available at the grocery store. Not as many kids freqented the Shop and Save as did the candy counter at the corner market, I suspect.
I suspect the slight uptick in the late ’80s represents a time when comics shops were flush and many were ordering (if not necessarily selling) MAD.
The more recent downtick represents, I think, a core group of aging fans who are willing to track down MAD. It’s the same with comics. The drops since then seem a result of each price increase leaving the remaining fans with fewer options for the same amount of disposable income.
Another thing that happened past the peak years, that may have alienated the pre-existing audience, and its ability to carry through
Norman Mingo no longer doing covers - dilution of brand
Don Martin leaves in a Huff.
National Lampoon, Monty Python, SNL take up slack.
Mads satire loses edge in boring post sixties political climate of Carter Ford admins
Other media satire grows up, with MPAA ratings allowing free reign. Comedy Albums use four letter words.
Mad becomes increasingly self referential
Bill Gaines passes away
Magazine and comics distribution models totally change; no longer on every corner.
MAD was doomed to failure when it stopped being genuine. It began as a publication where creative, funny people made a mag they believed in.
As time wore on, the magazine enjoyed more and more success. At some point though, and MAD is not alone here, the focus turned toward selling a magazine, instead of creating a magazine. It was no longer genuine - the primary goal was to earn a buck. Previously, the primary goal was to entertain, and the earning of bucks were a wonderful side effect.
Oversimplifying things? Perhaps. I was a MAD “lifer” who gave up on MAD in the mid 90s after it became painfully clear that, aside from the GENIUS folk who had been there for so long (Aragones, Jaffee, Berg, Drucker, et al) the magazine was in complete reactionary mode. “Oh no, our sales are down! What do we do? Uh… add advertising!”
The desperation was pretty transparent for the last 15 or so years. The poor sales in 2009 and movement toward a quarterly (read: MAD will cease by this time next year unless it’s put up for sale) is not surprising. The surprising thing is that it lasted as long as it did once Gaines was no longer the man behind the MAD.
Some of the prior comments tend to muddy the timeline. The National Lampoon hit its peak in sales right around the same time as Mad did. As I recall, it’s peak circulation was about half of what Mad’s was. NatLamp’s subsequent circulation dive may be related to many of its early contributors going off to do other things, including writing for SNL and the movies. In any case, it stopped publication a long time ago.
Mad’s entry into the comic book Direct Market was relatively late. In 1983, Bill Gaines told me that he wouldn’t sell to comics distributors, because he wanted to be loyal to the newsstand distributors who had made Mad successful. In about 1987, he relented somewhat, allowing Dorothy Crouch to begin selling directly to stores. Unfortunately the only terms available were prepaid and with orders in forty-copy increments, so few stores took advantage of the offer. No one wants to order 40 copies, when they only think they can sell 10.
It wan’t until the late-eighties or early nineties that Mad was sold to comics distributors. Around the time that DC made thier exclusivity deal with Diamond, they took up the distribution of Mad under their brokerage agreement. One issue for comics stores since has been that Mad never provides much in the way of advance notice about what features and (especially) covers will be, at the time of solicitation to stores. As a result, issues that benefit from highly salable covers are rarely available in sufficient quantities in comics stores.
So, Mad becomes something that sells at a steady pace, except for the periodic instant sell-outs that can’t be replenished.
That steady sales pattern of recent years, even as the creative lineu has changed may have something to do with comics tsores and their unchanging orders.
sad to see MAD goes as it is…..
it should have never grown up !!!!!
but kids nowadays are too stupid anyway to appreciate MAD.
Interesting discussion of something that is not often discussed, and much of the parsing above makes some sense to me.
To be frank, I considered MAD doomed the moment its EIC told me that his book was read by 20-year-olds. This was 1995 or so; I was 26 at the time and loved MAD dearly as an institution, but hadn’t read it since age 13. I didn’t need to; I already knew what MAD thought of everything. Everybody I knew–especially the comedy freaks–had moved on around the same age. There’s nothing wrong with this; there’s also nothing wrong with people who continued to read it. But I thought then (and think now) there’s something very wrong with the willfullness of it. The suggestion seemed to be, producing a funny magazine for kids is beneath us; we consider ourselves to be just as funny and smart as the guys on SNL/The Simpsons/insert cool TV show here; since that’s for adults, so are we, and we’re going to pretend that nothing has changed since 1968.
If MAD wanted to age, it could’ve been The Oldie; if it wanted to stay eternally young, it could’ve been Nickelodeon. Both are viable niches, sporting magazines with plenty of editorial meat and positional integrity. But to stick to fantasy numbers out of pique–well, the circ figures speak for themselves. I’m not privy to their stats, but one 65-year-old and five eleven-year-olds gives you an average age of 20. If MAD’s demos were truly college-aged males, in 1995 or now, the magazine would be a vibrant presence where college-aged males are, which is COLLEGE. It wasn’t in 1987-91 when I was at school, it wasn’t in 1995 when I was interviewing the editors for deep background on a book, and it isn’t now.
MAD’s slide is not difficult to understand. It was no longer the only game in town after 1970. Instead of counterattacking in a sensible way–updating its circa-1957 look, adding some youth to the masthead, strengthening its hold on younger readers, and pointing out that it, unlike NatLamp, did not sell ads and thus “could not be bought”–MAD’s ego kept it fighting a battle it could not win. Then SNL came along and demonstrated how one could package the style for television. As a mass-market product, MAD was dead from that day forward.
Even so, MAD could’ve carved out a lovely little niche for itself by admitting what it was–an American VIZ–and been very profitable for all concerned. But they desperately wanted to be relevant, something that hadn’t been possible for decades (ask Spy after, say, 1992). By the time I was prowling around MAD’s offices, it was strictly “Tiny Mummies” time. I think I actually heard somebody use the phrase “the MAD way,” as in “that’s not how you write an article.” People like Kurtzman–and I talked with him–they don’t work like that. People who work for Time-Warner do, and with all due respect to MAD’s post-Gaines caretakers, there’s a reason why all the great American humor magazines have been essentially start-ups under single strong editors.
Getting sold–preferably to a non-commercial quasi-educational institution a la the Harper’s Foundation–would be the best thing to happen to MAD for decades. But I bet that won’t happen. What’s much more likely is that all that “content” will be seen as “leverage-able,” and so group after group of dumb money will buy it and list it on the exchange and repackage it and enter into agreements with horrible fly-by-night no-taste producers from the Valley, making horrible fly-by-night straight-to-video comedies until, as with NatLamp, a once-valuable brand name looks like (in the parlance of my era MAD) “a pimp’s Cadillac left overnight in the South Bronx.”