| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Magazines passed over for reading blogs, instead. |
Topic: Magazines passed over for reading blogs, instead.
| Author | Message |
| loadzoflaughs | Posted – 5/17/2007 8:37:58 PM | show profile Hey all, Are any freelance magazine writers concerned about the eventual demise of magazines, since blogs are taking storm. The pay rate of blogging sucks... Karen |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 5/17/2007 9:54:45 PM | show profile Yes but you can start a blog for free, write what you want and take ads. Try starting a magazine. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/18/2007 12:49:30 AM | show profile There will always be a demand for good writing, whether in magazines or online. |
| Suet | Posted – 5/18/2007 9:30:29 AM | show profile It seems unfair that you can publish a blog, take the best bit out of say 20 magazine stories every day, and add a sentence or two of comment before and after, and profit from that, whereas, well, you didn't do any of the original work. Magazines are pretty much screwed. |
| InsomniacNOT | Posted – 5/18/2007 9:41:02 AM | show profile Magazines aren't screwed. Some magazines are screwed. And twas always so. Time marches on. Things change. Not all blogs are cut and paste of other material. Nor are all blogs profitable. They have to be good and have readers. And if a cut-and-paste blog is good enough to have a big audience, you can bet it will be steering readers to the entire magazine article. As Dribbledrive pointed out, there will always be a market for good writers. The medium in which they are read is, however, evloving and evolution always brings with it advantages and disadvantages. You should try to focus on the opportunities. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/18/2007 11:41:06 AM | show profile Actually, it's the opposite of unfair -- it's fair use. And there is definitely skill involved in selecting parts from a magazine article and adding some comment. All that is, as they say, value-added. --It seems unfair that you can publish a blog, take the best bit out of say 20 magazine stories every day, and add a sentence or two of comment before and after, and profit from that, whereas, well, you didn't do any of the original work. Magazines are pretty much screwed.-- |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/18/2007 4:29:49 PM | show profile Except that there are people who like to have their magazines. They carry them about during the day, they take them to read in algebra class or while in line at the DMV, or on the couch while their kids watch PBS fucking Sprout all evening in lieu of a tantrum. Also, they like to reread stories, look at pictures. Most off all, they like to see things in magazines they can look up and research or order online later that night. If you simply had GOOD magazines out there, well written entertaining big ol' phtogenius glossies of old, with links to online dessert, magazines would thrive. But mag big execs are scared, and chasing trends, not willing to start a few of their own by hiring back good old fashioned magazine people who know how to put stuff out there that people want to read. More than once. and then keep, even. Why do you think so many 3o year olds (um, I won't name names, they've named themselves) still have their copies of Sassy magazine? Does anyone actually think if it became available online people would throw those magazines away? |
| Chamsah | Posted – 5/18/2007 5:29:54 PM | show profile Web sites, not blogs I am not so sure that blogs will put mags out of business but the web just might. It's happening over and over and I am not sure anyone is paying attention: many mags are shuttering but keeping an online presence. Why? Because they can't get advertisers to buy pages. But they sure as hell can sell ads on the web where they are interchangeable if they're not reaching their target, or if the company just wants something new up. Advertises don't have to wait a month or a week or however long it takes to run a new ad. Plus, it's way cheaper. I am with doglady. I want something in my hands. And when you are on staff, there's no greater satisfaction of the thwap sound of the magazine you just busted a gut to get out the door hitting your desk before it hits the stands. It's an accomplishment that you can hold. I hate reading content on the web. My eyes go glassy (even as I am writing this). I am of the age of curling up with a good book as a child -- no web around until I was well into my career. But we HAVE to pay attention to the web and how it is affecting publishing... The music business ignore it and look where they are. When was the last time YOU bought a CD? (I will further age myself and mention my vinyl collection...) They never thought it could happen, but it did. Our industry needs to be paying closer attention or else it's dying on the vine.... |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/18/2007 7:36:24 PM | show profile I say the problem is that dinasours still run the magazines, do most of the hiring, and they hire corporate types who either go with trends desperately and don't have a clue about magazines (were breastfed on the web and are convinced it is THE future and print must imitate it) or people who don't have a clue about the web but are "names" in the business. magazine journalism has been Toosized, Pratt-ized (wehen Jane Pratt didn't eeven run her magazines, Christina Kelly did) , it's about celebrity. And that's not what makes a good magazine. Quipping about Adam Moss being the new David Remnick--watch many ASMEs NY mag gets next year. It's all flash and trend now to keep up with the web. A great magazine is a magazine the editor and its staff is passionate about--the magazine chronicles their interests, their obsessions, their passions, their insecurities, their battles--interpersonal and extra-personal. It's about relating to the reader and connecting with the reader in a creative original and deeply personal way. It's not about the friggin web or blogs or even trends, exclusively (most readers of magazines either ignore them altogether or drop them within a year of their peak. Get a good magazine editor and let her put together a great, inspired staff that's not afraid to come to editorial meetings with a flash of of an out-there idea here or a personal confession there, a bunch of people with many funky voices, and you'll have a great magazine. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/18/2007 7:39:21 PM | show profile oh, and I bought a CD yesterday. I just wanna have it right here, where, if my computer crashes or someone snags my Ipod shuffle, I got the real McCoy, right here in my living room. And I still have some Vinyl, too. I like hard copy. It's something I have in my hands. I can put it on something and "play", and remove it when I'm done. And it's gonna be worth a bunch of money someday. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/18/2007 7:51:51 PM | show profile And in response to dribble's comment about good writing always being in demand. Um, no. That's a cliche. The thing with good writing is !) you have to define it, it means different things to different people/editors/ advertisers and 2) actually the best writing can take time and effort and support (financial, otherwise) to produce. With the pressure of the web timelines and the loss of ad revenue. magazines don't have time to invest in good writing or good writers. HBO does, magazines do not. or they choose not to, rather. Don't simplify the situation by farting out the cliche that good writing sells. It doesn't. explain to me the sucess of trash like Us magazine, Star, and American Idol. Not to mention all the chick lit on the shelves. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/19/2007 1:16:41 AM | show profile I think there is always a market for good writing. That doesn't necessarily mean that market is selling magazine articles or even journalism, though. --And in response to dribble's comment about good writing always being in demand. Um, no. That's a cliche. The thing with good writing is !) you have to define it, it means different things to different people/editors/ advertisers and 2) actually the best writing can take time and effort and support (financial, otherwise) to produce. With the pressure of the web timelines and the loss of ad revenue. magazines don't have time to invest in good writing or good writers. HBO does, magazines do not. or they choose not to, rather. Don't simplify the situation by farting out the cliche that good writing sells. It doesn't. explain to me the sucess of trash like Us magazine, Star, and American Idol. Not to mention all the chick lit on the shelves.-- |
| candylilacs | Posted – 5/19/2007 11:36:55 AM | show profile To me, whenever I go on blogs, people are just complaining about what some journalist wrote and dogpiling on. I wrote a column about my friends having babies (as in I'm not fascinated by it) and it was blogged about on Salon. I wrote an 850-word piece in my local paper that Broadsheet wasted 1,500 words analyzing. Then about 15 other "professional bloggers" just basically agreed with her (because no one on the blogosphere has an original thought in their heads.) It's kind of like the Web equivalent of talk radio. I guess you go to snarky, opinionated people who hawk your point of view. Opinion pieces are OK, but original content is definitely lacking. (And yes, I have a blog!) ------ http://www.mswritesguide.blogspot.com |
| ophidia | Posted – 5/20/2007 12:35:03 PM | show profile Remember... You can't take a computer into the tub with you! |
| eriksherman | Posted – 5/20/2007 4:00:43 PM | show profile | email poster >> With the pressure of the web timelines and the loss of ad revenue. magazines don't have time to invest in good writing or good writers. << Of course they do, but many often choose to waste their time being inefficient, spending money for no reason, and being more worried about covering their rears with management than doing something that would improve the situation. If magazines don't do it, writers will begin to. A colleague of mine is pulling down six figure income from two specialized travel web sites he publishes. He used to write guide books but accurately saw where things were going. Produce "good" writing - which means delivering what an audience wants in a vivid way - and you can eventually make money. If the magazines don't keep up with the entrepreneur writers, then they will eventually fail. ------ Free writer resources: http://www.eriksherman.com/WriterBiz |
| Chamsah | Posted – 5/20/2007 10:50:15 PM | show profile Doglady I agree with you wholeheartedly. But let's address the real problem here: advertising. I am not sure it's something you mentioned in your post. It's why mags are shuttering, it's why I lost my job. Agencies just aren't buying print ads anymore. Doesn't matter how great the content is, how passionate the editors and writers are, how creative the corporate types allow themsevles to be (typically not at all). Loss of ads, loss of revenue, loss of staff. The final nail in the coffin: shutting down the mag. Advertisers don't give a crap about how great the content is. Or how many readers your pub reaches. (Trust me on this one: I worked at a mag with one of the largest circs in the country, millions and millions of readers, and they STILL couldn't sell ads.) Agencies don't want to spend the money on an print ad that sits dormat for a month when they can buy a banner or a pop-up on a website that can be changed instantly if it's not selling enough widgets. Plus, it's cheaper. WAY cheaper than cover 2. No advertising in magazines, no more magazines. Period. Until SOMEONE figures out how to address this issue, I still stand by my theory: dying on the vine. And I am glad you bought a CD. My husband is in that dying business and will be happy to hear that. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/21/2007 12:00:16 AM | show profile no readers, no buzz, no advertising is the way I always understood it. But I admittedly know very little about the ad side of magazines, except that when a magazine has buzz the advertisers come, regardless of web presence. Look at Teen Vogue. I love my cds. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/21/2007 12:02:54 AM | show profile dribbledrive, if you can explain the commercial success of Bridges of Madison County, I willl send you a check for $100. Meanwhile, explain to me why Halfway House by katharine noel isn;t on the NY Times Bestseller List and "The Secret" is. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/21/2007 2:17:49 AM | show profile Sorry, I haven't read any of the books you mentioned. --dribbledrive, if you can explain the commercial success of Bridges of Madison County, I willl send you a check for $100. Meanwhile, explain to me why Halfway House by katharine noel isn;t on the NY Times Bestseller List and "The Secret" is.-- |
| eriksherman | Posted – 5/21/2007 7:44:15 AM | show profile | email poster >> Advertisers don't give a crap about how great the content is. Or how many readers your pub reaches. (Trust me on this one: I worked at a mag with one of the largest circs in the country, millions and millions of readers, and they STILL couldn't sell ads.) << I think the situation is more complex than you portray. There are magazines whose advertising is growing, and while online ad spends have been on a sharp incline, they still represent less than 10% of total ad spending. Also, advertising in magazines has been roughly flat - not good, but not a situation with so many ads being pulled at once that magazines must downsize. Realize that what is pushing advertisers away are the games publishers have been playing for years with their circulation numbers, artificially pushing things up. Ad buyers want to know what they're paying for, and too many magazine publishers often keep lying about it. There's also the question of editors really being out of touch with their readers. Focus groups are of limited use, and in those the conversations are conducted by professional facilitators. So essentially people inside the business all congratulate each other on the quality of their editorial, and no one asks the readers. When you talk to experts in manufacturing, they'll tell you that quality means the fulfillment of customer expectations. But if you never ask people what their expectations are, how can you know? ------ Free writer resources: http://www.eriksherman.com/WriterBiz |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/21/2007 11:15:33 AM | show profile dribble drive, read The Bridges of madison COunty if you want to lose faith in the idea of quality writing forvere--knowing it spent an ungodly amount of time on just about every bestseller list available to man. The movie, starring Clint, was much better. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 5/21/2007 11:16:57 AM | show profile Oh, and it will take you about an hour to read. I am 100 per cent serious. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/21/2007 11:58:53 AM | show profile That's an offer: go read a book because you won't like it :) --dribble drive, read The Bridges of madison COunty if you want to lose faith in the idea of quality writing forvere--knowing it spent an ungodly amount of time on just about every bestseller list available to man. The movie, starring Clint, was much better.-- |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/21/2007 12:03:26 PM | show profile But seriously, I am sure there is someone about the book that made it resonate with great numbers of people. The DaVinci Code, for instance, wasn't a great piece of writing because of its prose, which was mundane at best, but because of the briskness and cleverness of its plot, and the way the author integrated lots of information into the fiction (which appeals to some fiction readers). And even though the prose itself wasn't terribly good, it was still met the needs of the readers. And that to me is good writing. In fact, sometimes as reader, I find distinctive, elegant prose unpleasant, because I'm not in the mood for it, and don't want the writing to get in the way of the reading. ----dribble drive, read The Bridges of madison COunty if you want to lose faith in the idea of quality writing forvere--knowing it spent an ungodly amount of time on just about every bestseller list available to man. The movie, starring Clint, was much better.---- |
| croaky | Posted – 5/21/2007 2:06:42 PM | show profile The web is where things are heading ...and as someone who loves magazines, I hate to say that. I think mags will always be around because of people like me, who love to read in the bath or in the park or pore over full-bleed photos. But magazines need to stop thinking that websites and blogs don't matter, and they need to start thinking about how they can make their content better than what you can get on the web. For instance, the May Bazaar ran a huge photo from Marc Jacobs' fall 2007 show. Nice, but anyone who's interested in fashion saw photos from the show back in February. Keep doing this stuff and watch your subscribers fall away. When I have interviewed at magazines and I've politely suggested ways to make the print editorial more competitive with Web editorial (since websites can be updated right away), I've gotten a lot of stinkface. A lot of people in print don't want to hear about the web, but, well, it's here and it's not going away. I just took an editing job for a website, and while I'll miss marking up galleys, I feel the online experience will help me in the long run. And, honestly, making $20k more than I do now--covering the same beat I love, but not having to produce photo shoots, etc.--makes Web work a lot more attractive, too. |
