The article just strikes me as more of a holier-than-thou critique of magazines that don't do things their preferred way as opposed to any having any genuine concern for authors.[/quote]
If by "holier-than-thou" you mean "I think publishers should pay writers" then call me holier-than-thou, too. Really. There just is no legitimate reason to mooch free work off of writers when you intend to publish for profit. Money flows to the writer. Not the other way around. If you intend to make money off the publication, you have an obligation to pay people. Period. End of discussion. This really isn't something that we should even have to argue over. How can you ask people to work for free so you can profit? That's just unethical.
That's why I used an example in terms of readers, rather than circulation.
A pretty deflection, but since the only proveable measure a magazine can provide is circulation, the differentiation is pointless. I can tell you I have 10,000 readers or 100,000 readers, but unless I can provide evidence of those readers it is an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The only number a magazine can produce that matters is circulation. How many people made a decision to subscribe/spend money? If we are going to pretend that "exposure" is a form of payment, then we need to discuss it in quantifiable terms. Arguing readers over circulation is gaming the system. But then again most of the free magazines are quite happy with that.
Kind of like when writers run free promos on KDP Select?
1. I'm no fan of Select, so not sure what your point is. Most indies use Select wrong, but that is a discussion for another thread.
2. If you don't know the difference between using a freebie in a controlled method to direct people to your own work as opposed to directing people to someone else's work, I can't help you.