Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 31, 1994 TAG: 9403310012
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: B-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: NEW YORK LENGTH: Long
Publishers rolled out new magazines such as Buzzworm and Garbage that preached waste reduction, energy conservation, forest preservation.
But now the roughly half-dozen publications that sprang up around Earth Day's 20th anniversary - four years ago this month - are falling as fast as clear-cut trees.
Buzzworm is in bankruptcy. Garbage cut its frequency after barely breaking even. E magazine is living hand-to-mouth. Even entrenched magazines are hurting.
The shakeout is most profound among the periodicals, but the trend suggests a fall-off in environmental interest, with implications beyond the publishing industry.
Despite the popularity of recycling and other initiatives, Americans in general - and magazine readers in particular - aren't as interested as environmentalists in green-product updates and the latest dirt on polluters.
Moreover, they are reluctant to pay about $30 a year for magazines when much of the same fare is supplied by newspapers, news weeklies and television.
"I'm not sure there was a euphoria except by the publishers themselves," said publisher Joel Makower. He should know.
Four years ago, Makower started The Green Consumer Letter, a monthly eight-page bulletin with information ranging from green investing to energy conservation printed on recycled paper. He was forced to close it in January after subscriptions fell to a few thousand.
"I made the naive but rational-at-the-time assumption that there was going to be a good steady market for this," Makower said.
What's clear is that publishers overestimated the concern aroused by Earth Day fervor, the anti-regulatory policies of the Reagan decade and disasters such as the Exxon-Valdez oil spill.
A Roper Starch Worldwide poll finds that one-fifth of Americans felt strongly about the environment last year, down from one-quarter in 1991. The number of consumers most likely to spend more for green products fell from 11 percent in 1990 to 6 percent to 1993.
One reason is the economy's sluggish emergence from the 1990-91 recession. Readers are less likely to renew subscriptions to magazines not considered essential.
Trend watchers expected the shakeout.
"Anytime a new issue comes up on the radar screen, there tends to be an initial panic. Then we become more informed, people start to take action, address the problem, and people's concerns become a bit muted," said Bradford Fay, vice president at Roper Starch, the marketing and public opinion research firm.
"It's not because the issue has gone away; it's because progress is seen. The fact that we had a recession forced this sort of pragmatic thinking to move in quicker than it might have otherwise."
Garbage magazine is struggling for a profitable identity. Started in 1989 by the publisher of The Old House Journal, the bimonthly initially offered standard fare such as articles on composting and walking to work. Subscriptions grew to 125,000 by late 1990.
But amid disappointing renewals, Garbage grew more adversarial by challenging accepted environmentalist opinions on key subjects. One story questioned whether the ozone layer's depletion was a serious problem. The magazine lost some angry readers in the process.
This year, Garbage underwent an even more fundamental shift. It halved its frequency to quarterly, dropped advertising and refocused on what it calls "environmental insiders" - readers such as environmental activists, regulators and corporate executives.
"What I've come to think is there's really nothing such as a stand-alone environmental lifestyle," said editor and publisher Patricia Poore, who also heads The Old House Journal. "It's really an oxymoron - you can't really live in the 20th century and really be back to the land."
You wouldn't know it from E, a five-year-old magazine steeped in environmental values. The February issue, for example, tells "The Dirty History of Nuclear Power" and how caffeinated environmentalists can choose "Coffees With Conscience."
Despite its nonprofit status - foundation grants are up to 18 percent of its $1 million annual budget, with the rest from subscriptions - the monthly was forced recently to cut costs by slicing circulation one-third to 50,000.
Even environmental groups that publish large-circulation magazines for their members are struggling. In 1991, Greenpeace closed its member magazine, no longer able to afford it.
Sierra magazine, published by the Sierra Club, has had limited success in luring big advertisers because of a predicament faced by all environmental magazines.
"We disseminate an anti-consumption message - travel less, consume less, pollute less," said Jonathan F. King, editor-in-chief.
One hopeful area is in catering to businesses. Makower continues to publish his Green Business Letter - with advice on how to make companies greener - because an annual subscription commands at least $100 more than what he could charge readers for the consumer version.
"That isn't a market that has been glutted by other media outlets," he said.
Not yet, anyway. ECO (pronounced echo), which bills itself as a business magazine about the environment, made its debut last fall with attacks on excessive and costly government regulation and an eclectic list of advertisers, including Dupont, utilities and the World Wildlife Fund.
ECO envisions profitability by 1996. But other start-ups with similar themes may obstruct that plan.
by CNB