Friday, July 03, 2009
Print mag as a brand extension
And hot on the heels of discussing special issues (see previous post), Bauer is reviving Smash Hits as a one-off Michael Jackson tribute special according to MediaGuardian.
That's an interesting development, given that Smash Hits still exists on/as other platforms – the print magazine as a brand extension to radio, television and online.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=64a6b576-8d9e-4ad5-b2c8-5c0d18365aee)
That's an interesting development, given that Smash Hits still exists on/as other platforms – the print magazine as a brand extension to radio, television and online.
Labels: Michael Jackson, political economy, print magazines, Smash Hits, specialised
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A must read about business journalism
Thanks to Charles Arthur for leading me to this – a piece by Dean Starkman, former business reporter, that castigates business reporting and then comes in for a good kicking by Mother Jones's commenters.
The bigger point is how easy it is for specialised journalists (of any speciality) to get too close to the interests of their sources and forget about the interests of their readers.
However, Starkman captures something very important when he says, "Increasingly, business coverage has addressed its audience as investors rather than citizens, a subtle but powerful shift in perspective that has led to some curious choices." In the UK this is exactly what the Thatcher government did with the sell-offs of British Gas, BAA, etc. Enough people could buy enough small numbers of shares to feel that they were somehow really connected to all this stuff that was going on in the City of London and Wall Street. Share prices suddenly mattered to individuals who previously would have had no reason to be concerned, just as the expansion of house ownership (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, of course) hitched us all up to the chariot of perpetual property inflation.
This is part of the bigger picture of how the context for journalism and what journalists do has changed. It was not one of the political lobby who blew open the Westminster expenses scams, it was probably someone in the fees office who was put down once too often by a snotty MP and who has wreaked the best revenge possible – getting a good shilling from the Telegraph and bringing down his tormentors. (This is, naurally, pure speculation but it's a good story don't you think?)
The bigger point is how easy it is for specialised journalists (of any speciality) to get too close to the interests of their sources and forget about the interests of their readers.
However, Starkman captures something very important when he says, "Increasingly, business coverage has addressed its audience as investors rather than citizens, a subtle but powerful shift in perspective that has led to some curious choices." In the UK this is exactly what the Thatcher government did with the sell-offs of British Gas, BAA, etc. Enough people could buy enough small numbers of shares to feel that they were somehow really connected to all this stuff that was going on in the City of London and Wall Street. Share prices suddenly mattered to individuals who previously would have had no reason to be concerned, just as the expansion of house ownership (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, of course) hitched us all up to the chariot of perpetual property inflation.
This is part of the bigger picture of how the context for journalism and what journalists do has changed. It was not one of the political lobby who blew open the Westminster expenses scams, it was probably someone in the fees office who was put down once too often by a snotty MP and who has wreaked the best revenge possible – getting a good shilling from the Telegraph and bringing down his tormentors. (This is, naurally, pure speculation but it's a good story don't you think?)
Labels: B2B, business_journalism, fourth estate, share price, specialised
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
Monday, July 07, 2008
Print magazines: the analogue Long Tail
When Chris Anderson published his theory of the Long Tail – the potential of digital media to unlock the residual value of older or less-demanded products – it was largely taken as a new phenomenon.
But, and this is so blindingly obvious that I cannot imagine why it hasn't occurred to me before, print magazines have been mining the Long Tail for decades. For every Cosmopolitan there is a Beads and Beyond, for every Top Gear a Which Motorcaravan.
The Periodical Publishers Association (UK magazine industry body) estimates that there are between 8,000 and 9,000 different magazines published but claims to represent only a third of that number. ABC does a fine job of auditing the sales of a large number of magazines but it's not difficult to think of a title that does not appear in their circulation charts.
There are still huge numbers of very small circulation magazines published, some of which have survived for a long time on their (relative) handful of loyal readers. Some publishers make a handsome living with their collections of off-the-radar titles, often augmented with specialist retailing or shows/exhibitions.
What does this prove? Nothing, except that
But, and this is so blindingly obvious that I cannot imagine why it hasn't occurred to me before, print magazines have been mining the Long Tail for decades. For every Cosmopolitan there is a Beads and Beyond, for every Top Gear a Which Motorcaravan.
The Periodical Publishers Association (UK magazine industry body) estimates that there are between 8,000 and 9,000 different magazines published but claims to represent only a third of that number. ABC does a fine job of auditing the sales of a large number of magazines but it's not difficult to think of a title that does not appear in their circulation charts.
There are still huge numbers of very small circulation magazines published, some of which have survived for a long time on their (relative) handful of loyal readers. Some publishers make a handsome living with their collections of off-the-radar titles, often augmented with specialist retailing or shows/exhibitions.
What does this prove? Nothing, except that
- print magazines are a very adaptable form
- there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Labels: digital revenue, magazine, magazines, niche, print magazines, specialised
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
News International's magazine division closes
Well, that didn't last very long, did it? Ever since the magazine branch of News International suddenly drew its horns in after the launch of LOVE IT, the writing has been on the wall. Now it's off the wall and into the Guardian's media section (and elsewhere).
Of course, Mr Murdoch is far from the first newspaper person to think that magazines represent an easy pot of gold – one thinks of Eve Pollard and Aura magazine, Kelvin MacKenzie and Highbury House, for example – and he won't be the last.
The media are converging, no question about that, but there are still specific skills and perhaps a particular culture, required by each platform.
Of course, Mr Murdoch is far from the first newspaper person to think that magazines represent an easy pot of gold – one thinks of Eve Pollard and Aura magazine, Kelvin MacKenzie and Highbury House, for example – and he won't be the last.
The media are converging, no question about that, but there are still specific skills and perhaps a particular culture, required by each platform.
Labels: eve pollard, kelvin mackenzie, news international, newspaper magazines, print magazines, specialised
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Narrow niche = tightrope act
Listening to our students discussing the cover for one of the course magazines has brought home to me something that should be obvious: the tighter the niche you're operating in, the less room for manoeuvre you have.
A magazine with some element of general interest has the possibility of playing around with images and coverlines that range over a broad-ish spectrum of content. In reality, of course, a title will home in on a cover style and stick with it; the classic example of this is Men's Health, which knows exactly what its readers want and gives it to them month after month, year after year.
(Pic copyright Men's Health)
But a mag that is targeted at a specialised readership must constantly beware of falling off the ledge.
Case in point – a mag about independent film making. This is already difficult because it must avoid, at all costs, straying into Empire, Total Film or Sight & Sound territory. Add to this the likelihood that the bulk of the readership is into live action film rather than, say, animation, and you have another limitation on your options.
The "rules" about covers, so economically expressed by David Hepworth in 2005, apply doubly here. Not only must the covers of ultra-specialised magazines appeal to a moron in a hurry, they must appeal to a moron with blinkers on.
A magazine with some element of general interest has the possibility of playing around with images and coverlines that range over a broad-ish spectrum of content. In reality, of course, a title will home in on a cover style and stick with it; the classic example of this is Men's Health, which knows exactly what its readers want and gives it to them month after month, year after year.
(Pic copyright Men's Health)
But a mag that is targeted at a specialised readership must constantly beware of falling off the ledge.
Case in point – a mag about independent film making. This is already difficult because it must avoid, at all costs, straying into Empire, Total Film or Sight & Sound territory. Add to this the likelihood that the bulk of the readership is into live action film rather than, say, animation, and you have another limitation on your options.
The "rules" about covers, so economically expressed by David Hepworth in 2005, apply doubly here. Not only must the covers of ultra-specialised magazines appeal to a moron in a hurry, they must appeal to a moron with blinkers on.
Labels: covers, magazines, niche, specialised
