Friday, June 30, 2017
Why our preference for print is misleading
I love print on paper. Most people who read magazines love print on paper, perhaps because it is so very convenient, perhaps because they like the look of type and the feel of the stock. That's why we say we "prefer" to read on paper when someone asks us.
But as Dr Joe Webb reminds us, preference surveys "track the way people believe they used to do things, not new behavior, nor does it indicate future behavior."
This quote comes in a longer piece that ties together the cost of using the US Postal Service with Mary Meeker's annual survey of media, technology, the economy and more. Dr Webb was prompted to write it because the president of the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA, the US equivalent of the UK's PPA) called into question Meeker's motivation and impartiality.
It's a longish read with a specific UScontext but worth looking at for the more universal points he makes. Like this further thought on preference surveys, for example:
But as Dr Joe Webb reminds us, preference surveys "track the way people believe they used to do things, not new behavior, nor does it indicate future behavior."
This quote comes in a longer piece that ties together the cost of using the US Postal Service with Mary Meeker's annual survey of media, technology, the economy and more. Dr Webb was prompted to write it because the president of the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA, the US equivalent of the UK's PPA) called into question Meeker's motivation and impartiality.
It's a longish read with a specific US
They do not track frequency, or volume of usage. And when studies report things like “70% still prefer medium A,” that conveniently forgets that until medium B came around, medium A was 100%, and that it was the only choice. Being at 70% is actually loss of almost one-third of the hearts and minds ofmarketplace , not a reason for celebration. By presenting it that way, the survey makes a particular condition seem better than it is.
Sadly, preference surveys encourage producers of medium A to stick with that medium at a time when they should be using the surveys to show the urgency of being involved in medium B, or better yet, figure out how mediums C and D will affect B and A. Preference surveys say something nice and make the entrenched class readers feel good, but the surveys are not really strategic, tactical, or actionable, and give competitors more time and freedom to encroach on their business.
Many magazine publishers are looking at B, C and D, of course, but nostalgia for print – perhaps bolstered by an apparently thriving print-based indie magazine sector – continues to skew the view from some perspectives.
I love print – but most of my reading is done on a screen.
Major hat-tip to Bo Sacks and his wonderful newsletter.
Labels: magazine, magazine studies, political economy, print, print magazines
Monday, February 03, 2014
Teaching students how to launch a magazine
I am looking forward to reading How To Launch A Magazine In This Digital Age, the new book by Mary Hogarth and John Jenkins, and while waiting for it to arrive I have been thinking about how I teach our postgrad students about launches.
At the moment I follow the tried and tested ideas laid out by John Wharton in his 1992 classic Managing Magazine Publishing. With a bit of tinkering to accommodate websites and digital media, and extra input garnered from industry figures like Mel Nichols and Nicholas Brett, the principles laid out there still make perfect sense.
Even Future's approach to developing Mollie Makes – which essentially boils down to "follow the social interactions" – can be accommodated into Wharton's plan; it's basically just another kind of reader research, albeit far more of a two-way and managed conversation than more traditional forms.
But the thinking behind the Wharton-style launch plan is highly commercialised – it works to the PTC/PPA agenda that accredited courses must be aware of. Yes, everything can be applied to smaller, independent titles and, if they are to succeed, their publishers must have answers to all the traditional questions. Passion for a subject can take you so far but to be able to continue publishing about that subject, and not to lose the shirt off your back, some of the assumptions and some of the details need a different emphasis.
For example, I have read a couple of things by small publishers, almost micro-publishers, that lay the stress not on making a profit but on breaking even – in essence, making enough so they can re-use the money to make another issue or a completely different magazine.
In this context teaching students about distribution takes on a completely new aspect. Trying to get 6,000 copies of a title in front of committed enthusiasts is a different job to contracting Frontline to get 60,000 into W H Smith and the supermarkets.
We do add this into supervision of MA students who undertake an Enterprise project but given the increasing emphasis on entrepreneurialism and small start-ups I really need to rebuild a couple of lectures.
At the moment I follow the tried and tested ideas laid out by John Wharton in his 1992 classic Managing Magazine Publishing. With a bit of tinkering to accommodate websites and digital media, and extra input garnered from industry figures like Mel Nichols and Nicholas Brett, the principles laid out there still make perfect sense.
Even Future's approach to developing Mollie Makes – which essentially boils down to "follow the social interactions" – can be accommodated into Wharton's plan; it's basically just another kind of reader research, albeit far more of a two-way and managed conversation than more traditional forms.
But the thinking behind the Wharton-style launch plan is highly commercialised – it works to the PTC/PPA agenda that accredited courses must be aware of. Yes, everything can be applied to smaller, independent titles and, if they are to succeed, their publishers must have answers to all the traditional questions. Passion for a subject can take you so far but to be able to continue publishing about that subject, and not to lose the shirt off your back, some of the assumptions and some of the details need a different emphasis.
For example, I have read a couple of things by small publishers, almost micro-publishers, that lay the stress not on making a profit but on breaking even – in essence, making enough so they can re-use the money to make another issue or a completely different magazine.
In this context teaching students about distribution takes on a completely new aspect. Trying to get 6,000 copies of a title in front of committed enthusiasts is a different job to contracting Frontline to get 60,000 into W H Smith and the supermarkets.
We do add this into supervision of MA students who undertake an Enterprise project but given the increasing emphasis on entrepreneurialism and small start-ups I really need to rebuild a couple of lectures.
Labels: business model, cardiff maglab, distribution, magazine launch, political economy, PPA, PTC
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Magazines: You say Paywall, I say Subscription
Another extract from James Fallows in The Atlantic, this time on paywalls (scary, new) considered in the context of subscriptions (reassuring, familiar):
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/how-to-save-the-news/8095/6/
“If you go back through history, content has always been monetized across a broad spectrum,” Nikesh Arora said. “You could buy a journal for a $1,000 subscription price and an audience of 1,000. Or you could pick up a newspaper that is given out free on the Metro. People have adjusted their cost curves to their own form of monetization. The Harvard Business Review is not fretting about a loss of advertising [most of its revenue comes from subscribers]. The free Metro paper is not fretting about low subscription income. They have different business models, and the same principle will apply on the Internet.” Before, “publishing” meant printing information on sheets of paper; eventually, it will mean distributing information on a Web site or mobile device. That shift, according to Arora and others, will not force news companies into a limited range of business choices. If anything, it should allow for even more variety.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/how-to-save-the-news/8095/6/
Labels: development, digital revenue, electronic magazines, James Fallows, political economy
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Magazines: Read + Engage With + Use = Income
There's a very good piece by James Fallows in the current issue of The Atlantic about Google and the ways in which it is exploring how to save news organisations.
Although the article focuses is on the USA, the principles in play are just as relevant to the UK, where the co-ordinated cry of magazine publishers is "show us the money". But thinking about how to make online or digital publishing pay – in and of itself – is very unlikely to reach a worthwhile conclusion, and here's a quote from Fallows that shows why:
So why panic about doing it outside of print?
Full text (over several pages): http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/how-to-save-the-news/8095/1/
Although the article focuses is on the USA, the principles in play are just as relevant to the UK, where the co-ordinated cry of magazine publishers is "show us the money". But thinking about how to make online or digital publishing pay – in and of itself – is very unlikely to reach a worthwhile conclusion, and here's a quote from Fallows that shows why:
One Google employee who asked not to be named mentioned another report on journalism’s future and pointed out a section called “Focus on the User.” “They just mean, ‘Get money out of the user,’” he said. “Nowhere do they talk about how to create something people actually want to read and engage with and use.”Read, engage with and use – these are the keystones of successful magazine publishing. If you published that as a formula for success in print it would be ridiculed as a statement of the bleedin' obvious.
So why panic about doing it outside of print?
Full text (over several pages): http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/how-to-save-the-news/8095/1/
Labels: digital revenue, magazines, political economy
Friday, January 29, 2010
iPad: fourth thought
In what may, or may not, be the last of these post-launch reflections on the Apple iPad, here is some information gathered by Steve Smith of Mobile Insider.
Smith interviewed a number of industry figures and came to the conclusion that :
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d5b118a2-4351-42e6-ad4e-2ad3d2c618b6)
Smith interviewed a number of industry figures and came to the conclusion that :
More than anything, this is a media consumption device. I am actually fairly shocked at how little this device is informed by person-to-person communication and interactivity. It is really a lean-back device. With a keypad that is going to be a challenge under any scenario and no camera for video-blogging, the iPad doesn't even have some of the basic blogging and posting tools Apple encourages on its Mac platform.
But Dan Flanegan of BrandinHand says this is exactly the in-between device that finalizes his shift of media consumption from analog to digital. "The iPad completes my content consumption transformation," he says. "To this point my iPhone and MacBook Pro have pulled me away from traditional broadcast entertainment and news. The iPad completes this, giving me a place for books, magazines, newspapers right alongside a better experience for TV and movies."
Flanegan is a true believer that this is the beginning of the end of paper. "I can see how my kids will consume media in their lifetime. Goodbye newsprint, annoying business reply card inserts and six-inch thick Stephen King novels. Hello, content anywhere! What took you so long?"
Read the whole article on the Media Post site.
Labels: digital magazines, digital revenue, electronic magazines, iPad, political economy
Thursday, December 10, 2009
How to monetise digital publishing: print it
One week Haymarket closes the print versions of magazines in favour of online only, the next it converts online only to print.
As the company itself reports, a "best of" bookazine compilation of PistonHeads.com is now available, just in time for Christmas. There's lovely.
NB: Interestingly Zemanta has only picked up on the Christmas word so here's a lovely seasonal picture:
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=20c63f25-83e8-431f-820c-cf94259668a1)
As the company itself reports, a "best of" bookazine compilation of PistonHeads.com is now available, just in time for Christmas. There's lovely.
NB: Interestingly Zemanta has only picked up on the Christmas word so here's a lovely seasonal picture:
Labels: bookazine, digital magazines, electronic magazines, political economy, web 2.0
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
"iTunes for magazines" gets a little more focus
More details about the US consortium of magazine publishers and their planned "itunes" for magazines, courtesy of the Guardian/Paid Content.
UPDATE ( few minutes later after actually following the Zemanta links!)
In the comments under the Gawker post, lukeoneil47 makes the very good point that in the USA magazines bought on subscription are almost free already. That discussion in full (all material taken from Gawker.com: http://gawker.com/5421522/the-new-itunes-for-magazines-or-an-irrelevant-venture-is-here
12/08/09
@DahlELama: Print subs are basically a loss and getting more so--they are super cheap in order to keep the rate base up, but are increasing in cost as printing prices, postal rates, and gas prices rise. Better to print just a few copies to sell at newsstand for those who really want the "object experience" (I made that term up) and put the rest of your energy into developing web audience and revenue models.
I think music will go same way. I mean, why make a CD? People would rather download. But a fancy vinyl box set? They will buy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ebdf248f-fae9-44a5-b053-1f46473e826a)
UPDATE ( few minutes later after actually following the Zemanta links!)
In the comments under the Gawker post, lukeoneil47 makes the very good point that in the USA magazines bought on subscription are almost free already. That discussion in full (all material taken from Gawker.com: http://gawker.com/5421522/the-new-itunes-for-magazines-or-an-irrelevant-venture-is-here
12/08/09
@sweetpickles: How much is this going to be? Magazines are already basically free. $10 or so for a year.
@lukeoneil47: Exactly; I don't pay enough for magazines to start looking for a cheaper way to get them, and an e-reader doesn't look nearly as intriguing on coffee table. (Or maybe it does, but I'm not letting my guests get their grubby hands on it.)
@triplethreat: Interesting; that's definitely a perspective I haven't heard yet. What's the advantage to getting rid of the subscription model as long as the issues are still being created in print?
I think music will go same way. I mean, why make a CD? People would rather download. But a fancy vinyl box set? They will buy.
Labels: digital magazines, digital revenue, distribution, electronic magazines, Gawker Media, political economy
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
US magazines could play digital shop – if they can find the till
The New York Observer has reported an idea from the USA that goes some way towards some of what I might have been suggesting in the previous post.
If I understand the plan correctly, a bunch of American magazine publishers are talking about banding together to create a virtual "shop" where their magazines can be bought in multiple formats:
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the publishers have quite got hold of the right end of the stick:
Some of this seems to be reinventing the wheel (aka the iTunes store/Amazon marketplace/smartphone apps stores) and some seems to be ignoring the psychology of purchasing. It could be another Brill-iant idea.
Or the talking could just stop once they've seen what happened to Menzies digital download centres.
THIS JUST IN
John Federico of TechStartups.com reported this last week: The Maggwire Model: iTunes for Magazines
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7b5cda13-27d6-4ad4-8a7a-a494fe907656)
If I understand the plan correctly, a bunch of American magazine publishers are talking about banding together to create a virtual "shop" where their magazines can be bought in multiple formats:
The company will prepare magazines that can work across multiple digital platforms, whether the iPhone, the BlackBerry or countless other digital devices. The company will not develop an e-book, but create something that people familiar with the plans compare to iTunes—a store where you can buy new and distinct iterations of The New Yorker or Time. Print magazines will also be for sale.
(I love the throwaway nature of that last sentence.)
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the publishers have quite got hold of the right end of the stick:
“It’s pretty complicated stuff,” said a source. “The really, really hard part is that you’ve got so many different kinds of devices running on different operating systems. And how do you handle that? The consortium provides one point of contact for the consumer. When you come to the main store, you can get the content any way you want.”
(Again, love that "source".)
Some of this seems to be reinventing the wheel (aka the iTunes store/Amazon marketplace/smartphone apps stores) and some seems to be ignoring the psychology of purchasing. It could be another Brill-iant idea.
Or the talking could just stop once they've seen what happened to Menzies digital download centres.
THIS JUST IN
John Federico of TechStartups.com reported this last week: The Maggwire Model: iTunes for Magazines
Labels: digital magazines, distribution, iTunes iPhone, political economy
Amazon, John Lewis and the magazine business model
Consider the following, taken from a feature about online shopping by David Teather in yesterday's Guardian:
So here it is.
Print magazines represent the bricks-and-mortar retailer, the keeper of the brand name. The online sites of those magazines represent the retail website, where people visit to do their research. If they like what they find they may then visit the material artefact (the print magazine).
Hmm, doesn't look quite so good out of my head and into type but there's something there. It's not a Murdochian (senior or junior) re-education programme, quite.
If it is true that people will visit a retail website before they make the further, and far more complicated and time-consuming, effort to visit the physical shop, then why should it not be possible, given the appropriate incentives and enticements, to do the same with a magazine in online and print forms?
The biggest question is why – if it is true – people do this? Why not just buy online if you can? Does John Lewis keep some things back for the shop only? Maybe they like visiting the shop? Maybe it becomes part of a larger "emotional" experience?
If we can find some answers to that (and I bet someone has them) perhaps we can forge some new hypotheses. We should certainly remember that print-on-paper has some advantages and pleasures to offer that online will never replicate, and play those up (yes, haptics again, but also lovely big pictures rich in detail, intricate graphics, ultimate put-down-ability).
Or perhaps I'm just suggesting the freemium business model, with online as the free product and print as the premium product.
But it's important to think about that relationship, and worth trying to find models elsewhere that can be adapted to the particular circumstances of magazines.
The likes of Amazon and Asos are facing increasing competition from the high-street brands, many of which are beginning to take online retailing more seriously. When John Lewis launched its website in 2001, the aim was to eventually generate the sales of a medium-sized store – about £100m. Last year they reached £327m, outstripping its most successful department store and accounting for about 13% of the John Lewis division of the group. Online sales continue to grow at about 30% a year.When I read it a little bell went off and I thought, "What if you could forge a hypothesis for magazines based on that?"
Robin Terrell, managing director of John Lewis Direct, says the site has become increasingly important as around half of all shopping visits start with the website, as customers research prices and range. "The website now represents the brand. People are researching more and more online before visiting the shop and we have really been working to join up the customer experience."
So here it is.
Print magazines represent the bricks-and-mortar retailer, the keeper of the brand name. The online sites of those magazines represent the retail website, where people visit to do their research. If they like what they find they may then visit the material artefact (the print magazine).
Hmm, doesn't look quite so good out of my head and into type but there's something there. It's not a Murdochian (senior or junior) re-education programme, quite.
If it is true that people will visit a retail website before they make the further, and far more complicated and time-consuming, effort to visit the physical shop, then why should it not be possible, given the appropriate incentives and enticements, to do the same with a magazine in online and print forms?
The biggest question is why – if it is true – people do this? Why not just buy online if you can? Does John Lewis keep some things back for the shop only? Maybe they like visiting the shop? Maybe it becomes part of a larger "emotional" experience?
If we can find some answers to that (and I bet someone has them) perhaps we can forge some new hypotheses. We should certainly remember that print-on-paper has some advantages and pleasures to offer that online will never replicate, and play those up (yes, haptics again, but also lovely big pictures rich in detail, intricate graphics, ultimate put-down-ability).
Or perhaps I'm just suggesting the freemium business model, with online as the free product and print as the premium product.
But it's important to think about that relationship, and worth trying to find models elsewhere that can be adapted to the particular circumstances of magazines.
Labels: amazon, Chris Anderson, digital magazines, Free, haptics, political economy, print magazines
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monetising digital content 2: Phone app for Distill
Look at this will ya!
Creative Review likes it too.
UPDATE: But can you imagine what the rights clearance documentation looks like?
Creative Review likes it too.
UPDATE: But can you imagine what the rights clearance documentation looks like?
Labels: digital magazines, iPhone, political economy, web 2.0
Friday, November 13, 2009
Food for digital thought
Adam Bowie has published a long blog post reporting on proceedings at the Radio Academy (9.11.09) and although it's about radio in the digital age, obviously, if you can remove your silo-ed blinkers and think of it as being about media in the digital age and if you can link it to the formula in my last post and then if you can project it into magazine form, you will find it extraordinarily interesting. Guaranteed.
Labels: digital magazines, media management, political economy, web 2.0
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How to make money with an online magazine
The following block quote is taken from a comment on the piece Cory Doctorow wrote for Technology Guardian, about Rupert Murdoch's plans to block online access to his newspapers (sorry, the newspapers he has some vague connection with that are run according to the whims of their editors and over which he has no influence). chrsoz, the comment's author, addresses a number of points that Murdoch seems to have overlooked, then adds:
chrsoz's Guardian user profile
And none of this starts to touch on the fact that most traditional media co web sites are dull one-dimensional experiences (article + advertising - any decent community engagement (inc useless closed comment systems, ahem) = yawn), that really just mimic the newspaper in an online environment, without bringing any significant additional value to the party. So unless Rupe (and others) sorts this rather fundamental issue out then he's doomed anyway (if managing the digital business transition doesn't kill them first; maybe ereaders will save the day). Better get good at creating compelling and valuable consumer internet experiences, and not just being all about publishing articles online (otherwise they'll just get displaced by a new generation of way more innovative media companies who can fuse content + community + services + utility + monetisation).I have written about magazines and newspapers simply reproducing their print content online (see Writing for Journalists, over to the right) rather than creating digitally native material, but chrsoz summarises the principle behind successful online publishing beautifully in his last sentence:
content + community + services + utility + monetisationNext time I give my "launching a magazine" lecture, I shall make sure to use this simple-looking formula. Of course achieving it is not simple at all ... and therefore it could make the basis for another book. Thanks indeed chrsoz.
chrsoz's Guardian user profile
Labels: digital revenue, magazines, online, political economy, Value theory, web 2.0
Baron von Tollbooth: Murdoch, Google and money
Cory Doctorow's article in today's Technology Guardian is a lovely piece of writing, even though it's about a newspaper proprietor whose company gave up trying to publish magazines after realising they just couldn't hack it.
It's all speculation and opinion, of course, just adding to the virtual Niagara of comment about Rupert Murdoch's various pronouncements on paywalls, denying search and the legality (or not) of "fair use".
But there is one paragraph that has a definite ring of truth about it:
UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS ON DOCTOROW'S ARTICLE: DEFINITE MAGAZINE APPLICATION
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3ed82d90-e745-4fc6-ad64-d89168133e1a)
It's all speculation and opinion, of course, just adding to the virtual Niagara of comment about Rupert Murdoch's various pronouncements on paywalls, denying search and the legality (or not) of "fair use".
But there is one paragraph that has a definite ring of truth about it:
Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his media empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics.The idea of being a toll collector must be appealing to a businessman who staked his empire on being able to collect tolls (Sky).
UPDATE FROM THE COMMENTS ON DOCTOROW'S ARTICLE: DEFINITE MAGAZINE APPLICATION
And none of this starts to touch on the fact that most traditional media co web sites are dull one-dimensional experiences (article + advertising - any decent community engagement (inc useless closed comment systems, ahem) = yawn), that really just mimic the newspaper in an online environment, without bringing any significant additional value to the party. So unless Rupe (and others) sorts this rather fundamental issue out then he's doomed anyway (if managing the digital business transition doesn't kill them first; maybe ereaders will save the day). Better get good at creating compelling and valuable consumer internet experiences, and not just being all about publishing articles online (otherwise they'll just get displaced by a new generation of way more innovative media companies who can fuse content + community + services + utility + monetisation).
Labels: digital revenue, news international, political economy
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Magazines score marginally better than newspapers
The good news for print magazines in Targetcast tcm's latest survey can be summed up in this short extract:
Find a proper summary, with tables and everything at mediapost.com
60% of consumers say newspapers need to change the most to stay relevant, compared to 30% for magazines and nearly 20% for radio.Then there's this mixed news:
A solid 57% say they prefer the experience of reading a printed magazine over reading a magazine on the Internet. An even stronger 71% would not be willing to pay for an online magazine subscription to replace their printed magazine subscription. Also, only 15% of respondents overall agree that they'd rather read magazines online. Additionally, printed magazines score well in terms of ad attentiveness and purchase influence.Which goes to prove magblog's insistence that haptics is a very important consideration for print magazines.
Find a proper summary, with tables and everything at mediapost.com
Labels: digital magazines, digital revenue, political economy, print magazines, subscriptions
iPhone app for magazine publishers
Here's a useful post for magazine publishers thinking about developing an app for the iPhone: McSweeney's, the magazine and book organisation founded by Dave "Extraordinary Genius" Eggers has launched one with some interesting and potentially profitable features.
(Of course the author considers it in the light of possible newspaper usage, but what's new ... magazines show the way again.)
Labels: Apple, iPhone, magazine, political economy, web 2.0
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
B2B: No necessary intrinsic value
B2B publisher considers the value of information online. His conclusion? It all depends on how valuable the reader thinks it is. This conclusion may fall into the NSS category but it's interesting that someone inside the industry is saying it. (As reported in Press Gazette)
My conclusion? Everyone is going to have to work harder at digging out stories that the readers find valuable and getting ... what's that word? ... ah yes, scoops.
Hey – maybe this online thing could be good for journalism!
My conclusion? Everyone is going to have to work harder at digging out stories that the readers find valuable and getting ... what's that word? ... ah yes, scoops.
Hey – maybe this online thing could be good for journalism!
Labels: B2B, digital revenue, Emap, online, political economy
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Posh magazines get the once over from posh consultants
The Condé Nast building seen from Empire State building. Image via Wikipedia
However, with ads pages down drastically, the flower and limo budgets may need to be trimmed.
"When the Publishers Information Bureau gets its hands on the total numbers, this is what the percentages will look like:
Allure: down 51 percent
Arch Digest: down 44 percent
Bon Appetit: down 40 percent
Bride’s (Sept/Oct): down 19 percent
Traveler: down 44 percent
Cookie: down 19 percent
Details: down 34 percent
Glamour: down 41 percent
Golf Digest: up 0.2 percent
Gourmet: down 51 percent
GQ: down 31 percent
Lucky: down 36 percent
Self: down 50 percent
Teen Vogue: down 31 percent
Vanity Fair: down 36 percent
Vogue: down 36 percent
W: down 53 percent
Wired: down 41 percent"
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=df4f79a2-c64d-4f71-8f9c-662071d7caca)
Labels: CondeNast, GQ, magazines, political economy, Vogue
Readers Digest USA: private equity lets the deal go down
Did you follow the takeover of Readers Digest by a US private equity firm a couple of years back? Here are a couple of experts opining on the wisdom of that investment (with the benefit of hindsight). According to Jim Cramer (second video) not only is the magazine business kaput, no media stock is worth investing in at the moment.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f131e068-ff4d-4665-9cba-da3face15c07)
Labels: magazines, media management, political economy, Readers Digest, takeover
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
Friday, August 07, 2009
Bidding war on horizon for real life magazine stories
Rupert Murdoch's plan to charge for content in his newspapers has taken a more solid form. The Sunday Times will be News International's stalking horse and Rupert has refined his "people will pay" dictum:
The women's weekly market already pays big money for the best stories, so my guess is that Rupert has OK!, Hello and the other big players in his sights. Celebrity stories are fairly easy to spot, although getting the right ones for your specific readership is still an art, but didn't NI pass up the MP expenses disc?
If I am right, what does this mean for the Sunday Times brand? Andrew Neil has already said:
Will the overall effect be seen as devaluing the once mighty investigative organ?
Murdoch has never been afraid of reinvention, and perhaps it is this unsentimental streak that will actually allow him to succeed in imposing payments.
#magazines
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e5e688f6-f090-43ef-b32a-20aae1e6f167)
He claimed consumers were willing to pay for celebrity scoops and exclusive stories including revelations about MPs' expenses (from the Guardian's story)This indicates (to me, anyway) that the NI chequebook will be out for the big celeb and scandal stories and also helps to explain Nicola Jeal's move from her position as head of the (possibly doomed) Observer's magazine division to the Times, as weekend editor. (See previous post)
The women's weekly market already pays big money for the best stories, so my guess is that Rupert has OK!, Hello and the other big players in his sights. Celebrity stories are fairly easy to spot, although getting the right ones for your specific readership is still an art, but didn't NI pass up the MP expenses disc?
If I am right, what does this mean for the Sunday Times brand? Andrew Neil has already said:
Murdoch's websites will have to change dramatically if the initiative is to succeed. "If you are going to charge you have to build a site that is different and has a distinct character. General news has become a commodity in a sense. You have to recreate the paper online." (Guardian story, as above)Will there be sub-sites with different target readerships?
Will the overall effect be seen as devaluing the once mighty investigative organ?
Murdoch has never been afraid of reinvention, and perhaps it is this unsentimental streak that will actually allow him to succeed in imposing payments.
#magazines
Labels: magazines, media management, news international, political economy, weekly magazine
