I know a CD (or several) of these would really allow me to gain back alot of shelf/storage space. At different times I have thought of tossing the old ones but as my tastes change I go back and reread and find interest in things I missed or didn’t appreciate before. Also its fun/sad to watch the prices in the ads go up.
That other magazine is releasing these CDs covering thier whole production. I would love to see the same treatment of old MRs dating back to the 30’s or the old issues of Trains.
An article in PDF form for 6 bucks does not seem anywhere near the same deal.
Besides they would go so well with my DVD collection. I can collect alot more movies in this smaller format than I could with VHS.
This comes up periodically, and I don’t think so. We’ve looked at it and as of this point, I don’t think the costs of scanning everything in, would be recouped by the number of sales.
The original poster was talking back issues to the 30’s, so they won’t have them back that far in a digital form. Also, some work would be needed to make them searchable. But I too would like to see them on cd’s.
Actually Frank, the magazine is produced digitally now, but we used film up until, I believe October or November 2000. So the scanning would be the issues from 1987-2000. The film got chucked out many years ago.
And that is a lot of real time to be on a scanner. Read: labor cost. even if we had a summer intern at minimum wage rates!
I won’t say never, but I would say not anytime soon.
So would/will you ever offer October 2000 on to the Present on disk? It would still save me over two feet of shelf space.
I have an idea. You could offer each years compilation to subcribers at the years end. It would serve as subscription incentive as well as generate much good will on the part of my (and I’m sure many others) shelves. Even Non-Subscibers I am sure would consider buying this as well.
It would be a great way to reuse that content that you have already generated in an inexpensive format. DVD’s can hold much more info per pound and cost less to produce than the paper equivalent.