In Roy Greenslade's piece about the closure of 24, the "national newspaper for the north", after just five weeks, one of the reasons for failure he suggests is "although more professional in its appearance than The New Day and with more up-to-date news, it still looked more like a magazine than a newspaper." He then remarks on the continuing success of The New European, a print publication launched to capture the interest of the 48% of the UK population who wanted to remain in the EU.
This is yet another example of how newspaper people *still* don't get what is different about magazines. Neither 24 nor The New Day were like magazines – they were the opposite of magazines. Just because a newspaper journalist thinks they "look" like magazines and the fact they were full of gossamer-thin stories about nothing in particular does not make them remotely like magazines.
Magazines are aimed at a very specific readership, which is why The New European is much more magazine-like. It shares this essential characteristic with successful magazines like The Economist (which calls itself a newspaper) and Weapons of Reason.
Magazines are about something, and whether that something is "A project to understand the interconnected challenges shaping our world" (Weapons of Reason) or real life stories and competitions (Take A Break), they have to offer value to a specific audience.
Print newspapers launched on a hunch, aimed at no-one in particular and about nothing in particular are guaranteed to fail.