Thursday, July 28, 2016
Newspaper people *still* don't get magazines
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.
Labels: audience, magazines, newspapers, niche publishing
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
AOL prepares magazine niches for life after Time Warner
[AOL's] plan would be to build and buy scores of new brands in every monetizable niche possible. If you see a magazine at the newsstand covering a topic, AOL will have their own online brand for that topic, in blog or other format. They’ve already got the publishing platform with MediaGlow. New brands can be inserted or built at little marginal operating cost. And the talent is out there for the taking right now.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bb2ca6ef-2307-497d-b8b1-5923a55439c4)
Labels: men's magazines, niche publishing, online, political economy, web 2.0
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
TalkSport + Sport?
Now this could be interesting. UTV, the owner of TalkSport radio, is in discussions to buy Sport, the free magazine distributed in London and elsewhere until its publishers ran out of money on April 3, according to MediaGuardian today.
Why is it interesting? Because just about a year ago TalkSport launched its own online magazine (see http://mag.talksport.net/free-sport-mag-talksport-football-humour-babe/1N4a0997c3bd723012.cde) and has promoted it relentlessly on air ever since. It's still there, it's still free and clearly UTV think it's an area worth investing in.
As long as they don't bring back Kelvin Mackenzie to edit it ... (actually I just typed Mackenzine, which has possibilities).
Why is it interesting? Because just about a year ago TalkSport launched its own online magazine (see http://mag.talksport.net/free-sport-mag-talksport-football-humour-babe/1N4a0997c3bd723012.cde) and has promoted it relentlessly on air ever since. It's still there, it's still free and clearly UTV think it's an area worth investing in.
As long as they don't bring back Kelvin Mackenzie to edit it ... (actually I just typed Mackenzine, which has possibilities).
Labels: digital magazines, electronic magazines, kelvin mackenzie, magazines, niche publishing, print journalism
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A treasure trove of new magazines
Over at MagCulture.com, Jeremy Leslie has been sorting through the pile of magazines he acquired at the Colophon 2009 event. There are some fascinating sounding titles/concepts/executions, and it's well worth reading his descriptions. I particularly like the idea of a food magazine that comes complete with all you need to make tapas (http://www.lamasbella.org/).
Labels: editorial passion, magazines, niche publishing, print magazines
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Magazines, newspapers and political coverage for the elite
Three things to consider:
1) Professor Tim Luckhurst (University of Kent, formerly editor of The Scotsman) writes about newspapers' role as the Fourth Estate in Scotland and, whether he meant to or not, more generally:
(taken from his article in the Independent)
2) Max Hastings (former editor of the Daily Telegraph and London Evening Standard) writes about the disastrous effects of financial market deregulation on his pension fund:
(taken from his article in the Guardian)
Before we get to item 3), can anyone else see a disjunction in those two extracts? To me, they say, yes newspapers can be investigative crusaders, guarding the interests of the entire nation, but, actually, they usually choose not to be because ... well, because of all sorts of non-journalistic reasons. Proprietorial preference, perhaps; the desire to remain "one of us", maybe.
Was Mr Hastings not in a position to express his concerns to the Telegraph reading public? Perhaps he would like to tell us why he did not. Some people have tried to blame Robert Peston for precipitating the current crisis but it looks to me as though it goes back to the period Mr Hastings writes about, when newspapers such as the one he edited signally failed to act as a Fourth Estate.
And, despite Professor Luckhurst's protestations, perhaps that is one reason why people have turned away from buying information from newspapers - because they have come to realise that newspapers are rarely "at their best" and hardly ever offer "investigation, exposure and crusading zeal".
3) Peter Wilby writes about B2B/Special Interest magazines in the USA:
(taken from his column in the Guardian)
Although this segmentation and privatisation (which is how magazines work) is presented as a bad thing, surely it provides a model for newspapers? One reason the Daily Mail is successful is because it is so tightly focused on a particular segment of British society; the same principle applies to the Financial Times. As Vin Crosbie noted recently: "Wonder why there r no good suggestions how 2save traditional newspapers? Bcause that generic package of news has bcome obsolete." (It was a tweet, so forgive the txtspk).
The generic package of news has become obsolete:
1) Professor Tim Luckhurst (University of Kent, formerly editor of The Scotsman) writes about newspapers' role as the Fourth Estate in Scotland and, whether he meant to or not, more generally:
The country's broadcasters are ill equipped to fill the vacuum left by its failing newspapers. Broadcasters can never do the job of a free press. At their best they provide balanced, informative news. It is to newspapers that citizens must turn for investigation, exposure and crusading zeal.
(taken from his article in the Independent)
2) Max Hastings (former editor of the Daily Telegraph and London Evening Standard) writes about the disastrous effects of financial market deregulation on his pension fund:
One of the illusions of the Thatcher era, now laid bare by the economic crisis, was that of "financial self-empowerment". Margaret Thatcher aspired to give individuals discretion over their finances, above all pensions. Even back in the 1980s, this notion rang alarm bells with some of us. I suggested to a financial journalist friend that most people were neither eager to accept responsibility for their own money, nor fit to do so. He, a good Thatcherite, shrugged and said that we would just have to grow up, wouldn't we?
(taken from his article in the Guardian)
Before we get to item 3), can anyone else see a disjunction in those two extracts? To me, they say, yes newspapers can be investigative crusaders, guarding the interests of the entire nation, but, actually, they usually choose not to be because ... well, because of all sorts of non-journalistic reasons. Proprietorial preference, perhaps; the desire to remain "one of us", maybe.
Was Mr Hastings not in a position to express his concerns to the Telegraph reading public? Perhaps he would like to tell us why he did not. Some people have tried to blame Robert Peston for precipitating the current crisis but it looks to me as though it goes back to the period Mr Hastings writes about, when newspapers such as the one he edited signally failed to act as a Fourth Estate.
And, despite Professor Luckhurst's protestations, perhaps that is one reason why people have turned away from buying information from newspapers - because they have come to realise that newspapers are rarely "at their best" and hardly ever offer "investigation, exposure and crusading zeal".
3) Peter Wilby writes about B2B/Special Interest magazines in the USA:
Most of their subscribers are members of professional elites. And in the US, at least, they are gradually taking over the coverage of politics. Press coverage is being remoulded to serve an elite that will pay a premium price to keep tabs on how politicians and civil servants are affecting elite interests. News of how democratic institutions work is being segmented and privatised. And this process began 20 years ago, long before the recession and even before the growth of the internet.
(taken from his column in the Guardian)
Although this segmentation and privatisation (which is how magazines work) is presented as a bad thing, surely it provides a model for newspapers? One reason the Daily Mail is successful is because it is so tightly focused on a particular segment of British society; the same principle applies to the Financial Times. As Vin Crosbie noted recently: "Wonder why there r no good suggestions how 2save traditional newspapers? Bcause that generic package of news has bcome obsolete." (It was a tweet, so forgive the txtspk).
The generic package of news has become obsolete:
- Most newspapers have abandoned their specificity (as Tim Luckhurst notes in his article mentioned above) and much of their content is available elsewhere for free.
- Too many newspapers have voluntarily abandoned their role as the Fourth Estate (as Max Hastings admits, albeit inadvertently).
- Media-savvy readers have twigged that all reported news is partial. Once they have discovered the possibility of plurality (via alternative narratives, link trails, blogs, tweets, etc) the traditional model seems inadequate. However, specific interest groups still want to be served with specific information: architects want to know about issues that affect architecture; lawyers about issues that affect the law. This is still Fourth Estate stuff but applied to an audience that is actively interested and concerned. (If anyone is interested in tracing the history of this, I recommend Richard Ohmann's Selling culture: magazines, markets, and class at the turn of the century (London ; New York : Verso, 1996), which provides a thoughtful and informative analysis (see Chapter 7 in particular for the rise of the Professional-Managerial Class – Wilby's "elite").
Labels: audience, fourth estate, magazines, newspapers, niche publishing, readership, specialised
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Niche magazines for niche people
Well, that showed me!
Not only did the Editor of Buck have the courtesy to get in touch and very politely correct the version of his magazine publishing history in my previous post, he also left a friendly comment about Eat Soup, to which the Launch Editor of that mag has replied.
This has led me to three interesting places:
1) Although the reporting of Steve Doyle's CV was factually correct, the order it was presented in influenced the way that information was perceived (note the deliberate use of passive voice to avoid personal blame). This is an important ethical and practical point for all journalists: you can be right and still make it sound wrong. (And I apologise for repeating "facts" without having checked them.)
2) As I spend my working life encouraging people to make magazines and delight in the making of magazines, I should be far more encouraging about start-ups and niche publications in this blog. After all, I have been there myself, and this article in yesterday's Independent Media section demonstrates that well targeted magazines continue to attract readers in sufficient quantities to make them sustainable for the people who create them.
3) Perhaps there really is a niche for style + food-writing. In which case perhaps there is a niche for a course in style + food-writing ... or at the very least, a specialised module ...
Not only did the Editor of Buck have the courtesy to get in touch and very politely correct the version of his magazine publishing history in my previous post, he also left a friendly comment about Eat Soup, to which the Launch Editor of that mag has replied.
This has led me to three interesting places:
1) Although the reporting of Steve Doyle's CV was factually correct, the order it was presented in influenced the way that information was perceived (note the deliberate use of passive voice to avoid personal blame). This is an important ethical and practical point for all journalists: you can be right and still make it sound wrong. (And I apologise for repeating "facts" without having checked them.)
2) As I spend my working life encouraging people to make magazines and delight in the making of magazines, I should be far more encouraging about start-ups and niche publications in this blog. After all, I have been there myself, and this article in yesterday's Independent Media section demonstrates that well targeted magazines continue to attract readers in sufficient quantities to make them sustainable for the people who create them.
[This leads on to a sub-discussion of what constitutes "success" but I suspect that's a topic for another post.]
3) Perhaps there really is a niche for style + food-writing. In which case perhaps there is a niche for a course in style + food-writing ... or at the very least, a specialised module ...
Labels: Buck, Cardiff Journalism School, Eat Soup, editorial passion, magazines, niche publishing, print magazines, specialised
