| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Are American magazines killing themselves? |
Topic: Are American magazines killing themselves?
| Author | Message |
| Seafarer | Posted – 12/3/2007 2:08:26 PM | show profile | email poster Just wanted to highlight and second the Jon Friedman commentary from MarketWatch that is on today's mediabistro.com front page: "R.I.P., the American magazine" (URL http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rip-american-magazines/story.aspx?guid=%7BFC5AF057%2D44C3%2D4C94%2D9A98%2DBFB4DF567A2D%7D) As a freelancer, I see this attitude towards the Web all the time ("Oh, so-and-so here on staff handles all that Web stuff.") These are smart people, and I'm amazed at how out-of-it so many of them are about this topic. Significant quote from his article: "Listen, the Web is the most exciting part of a modern journalism enterprise for ambitious writers and editors. If they haven't figured it out by now, to hell with them." ------ My Web site Family Travel blog NHRA drag racing on Fast Machines |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 12/3/2007 2:43:35 PM | show profile According to Deloitte, with results pulbished in Publisher's Press Press Check newsletter (third quarter, 2007), "72% of consumers ages 13 to 75 prefer to read printed magazines over getting the same information online..." We've been having this discussion here at work. Our readers are nowhere close to being Internet savvy, so an online pub is not an advantage for us. I think breaking news is always going to be more popular online or on the news than from a magazine/newspaper, but people still like to bring something into the bathroom with them. Yes, advertisers are drawn by the instant results to their marketing dollars. This means that print media is going to have to get a lot more creative in giving advertisers definitive results. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/3/2007 6:45:42 PM | show profile Maybe they do (72 % etc.) But they see it first online. They don't have the time or inclination to go out and buy the magazine (and it's the newstand sales most publishers care about, oddly). So tease them with online material and get them to go out and buy the magazine. Magazines should be using the Internet. And vice versa. But Internet doesn't need magazines. Magazines do need the internet. Magazine industry dinosaurs fall into two categories: either reluctant or unwilling to admit this (DENIAL) or convinced that magazines need to be just like the stuff on the Internet --boxy, visual, quick to read, etc. (DESPERATION). And of course ALL are from and live in NYC, not Seattle, not the Silicon Valley, not anywhere else, really... Not exactly the tech epicenter of the world, now, is it? |
| noname1234 | Posted – 12/3/2007 7:14:03 PM | show profile 72% may claim they prefer reading magazines to getting the "same information" online, but that's missing the point -- online ISN'T the same as print. It's not just a matter of putting the same article on a website as you would in a magazine -- it's about thinking about the web differently -- multimedia, databases, interactivity, and ESPECIALLY community -- finding ways to harness the knowledge and skills that your community of readers has. "Teasing" content online to try to force people to go buy a magazine doesn't really work anymore (if it ever did). Why would users come to a site just to read "teasers" of "real" articles? There are plenty of websites out there where they can get complete information and more, all just a click away. To the original question: There are major problems in the magazine industry when it comes to the digital arena. The main thing that needs to happen is that magazines will need to start thinking of themselves as brands with many different yet equal and interacting components -- print, web, perhaps TV and radion -- and not as a dead-tree product with a few "offshoots" that they're forced to maintain. And magazine editors will need to be prepared to start interacting with "the people formerly known as the audience" (as Jeff Jarvis says on his blog buzzmachine) in a new, more equal way. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/3/2007 9:36:41 PM | show profile You are not going to get Ben Wallace-Wells 15,000 word article on the drug war online. If you did, you probably wouldn't read it online. You won't get the photos that win the Pulitzers that run with Pulitzer prize winning newspaper articles if they simply AREN'T AVAILABLE ONLINE. And so what if you can get "any" information on the Internet? DO you know if it's researched or fact checked (a lot of web information is wrong and outdated. I know this as a journalist who uses the web for research. a lot of it doesn't hold up under double check or fact check). Magazine articles, on the other hand, are usually researched and fact checked. (I know this isn't always the case anymore, but the credible pubs do use good fact checking. Ultimately, you can a lot of stuff on the web about A or B. But you aren't going to read an essay that has run in a specific magazine about a specific topic by a specific author if it's NOT THERE. The magazines who put whole articles online are doing a disservice to their own publications. I like the back story idea the aforementioned article above mentions. And of course you can use the interactive element to get reader feedback, about what's in the magazine, what isn't, what should be, as well as feedback on articles that do run. I like the idea of author and staff bios and blogs, Q & As with the author and editors. Magazines can use the web to celebrate their magazines--but putting the magazine online and then expecting people to then go out and buy it is, astoundingly stupid. And yes, when people are in line at the dentist office, or on public transportation, or on a plane, or in a bath, or even just in bed, they want something to read in their hands. They want something to look at, something to be able to tear pages out of and take to the department store or the hairdresser or put up on the fridge. People will read magazines IF the information in them is unique, comprehensive, full-bodied, and saveable. The idea that magazines need to be "boxy", "servicey", "easy to read" , etc is what's killing them. Because THAT'S what people use the Internet for. No better example of what's killing magazines right now is a flip through the once great Sports Illustrated. In stead of responding to the immediate access of sports on the web by giving the whole story, the locker room story, the analysis, the backstory and the reporting, SI is now the US Weekly of sports magazines. And it's AWFUL. It's why the SF Chronicle covered and broke the biggest sports story of the year--not S.I. S.I doesn't do that anymore. That's their solution to the competition posed by the Internet. meanwhile, you get the best sports coverage these days on Yahoo.com-long columns and articles by former S.I sportswriters who left because they couldn't write the way they wanted at S.I. Go figure. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/3/2007 9:50:39 PM | show profile And the number one enemy of good jounrnalism is branding. branding is a consumer product, not journalism. And right now our country needs more good solid unfettered unBOUGHT journalism. Not less. Not brands. maybe we think of magazines as two different things. You think of them as products and money-makers. I think of them as vehicles of journalism, information that educates, serves, informs and yes, entertains--but not at the cost of the other functions. And I think people are craving MORE, GOOD, RELIABLE, SMART, RELEVANT information. They get this from the web because they can't get it from magazines anymore. Too many Stephen Glasses and Jayson Blairs, plus waaaay to much fluff, regurgitation of the same material over and over, and froth. Sound bites, style over substance. It's why Redbook got tossed in the hot seat for airbrushing that photo of Fath Hill. It's why the latest Dove campaign is so successful with American women. People are sick of how un-real, trite and abridged magazines have become. It's got little or nothing to do with the Internet except that magazines have become this way as a result of what they feel they need to do to compete with the Internet. You don't see todays novels and non fiction books getting all boxy trite and stupid (except for the finance books, and those aren't the ones that are selling; it's thethick, heady smart books that are toping the bestseller lists). Even the Secret is shockingly wordy and rambling for something so pointless. The best selling health books are packed with information. If anything,books become thicker, more substantial, real brain food. Magazine editors need to do what is said in this article--get back to editing copy. Make that copy unique, interesting, relative, relevant, educational, and eloquent--written by a writer with a singular style and voice, researched and inclusive of as many "real Americans" (I.e. non New York City inhabitants, or, for that matter, "the tri state area)--people who live in Reno, Billings, Salt Lake City, Corvalis, Richland, etc.-- and people will buy your magazine. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 4:27:14 AM | show profile One last thought: I was at a lecture where David Halberstam was speaking, and he said something very interesting: We need journalism and journalists the same way we need firefighters, or police officers, doctors and public defenders. Journalists--while being paid for what they do -- should not be compelled to do it for money. What they do is a public service, above and beyond anything else they do, they serve the public. The rest is all crap and bullshit. No matter how good it looks, or feels, or how much money it makes the suits upstairs. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 12/4/2007 12:57:39 PM | show profile --Halberstam was speaking, and he said something very interesting: We need journalism and journalists the same way we need firefighters, or police officers, doctors and public defenders. Journalists--while being paid for what they do -- should not be compelled to do it for money.-- Honestly, I doubt many people believe this other than journalists., --Maybe we think of magazines as two different things. You think of them as products and money-makers. I think of them as vehicles of journalism, information that educates, serves, informs and yes, entertains--but not at the cost of the other functions. -- The reality is they are both. However, a magazine that doesn't make money won't stick around long to inform or entertain. -Magazine editors need to do what is said in this article--get back to editing copy. Make that copy unique, interesting, relative, relevant, educational, and eloquent--written by a writer with a singular style and voice, researched and inclusive of as many "real Americans"-- That would require a fundamental rethinking of magazine journalism economists, because most magazines won't pay enough for writers to do that. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 12/4/2007 1:07:29 PM | show profile Granitegirl says: "And of course you can use the interactive element to get reader feedback, about what's in the magazine, what isn't, what should be, as well as feedback on articles that do run." No. That's not the right way to think of it. That's what I call editor-focused thinking -- how can new technology make MY job easier, by making it easier to get feedback on the stories I'M writing? Rather, think of it like this: Your readers are a community. They have common interests and a lot of knowledge to share with each other and with me. How can the mission of our brand extend to be a place where professionals (editors) and "citizens" ("readers") come together to talk and share? Again to quote Jeff Jarvis, the future role of an editor/journalist may be more as a moderator of a discussion with a variety of participants, not as someone who simply tells people stuff then waits for feedback. And I don't think you can force people to buy magazines by not providing info for free on the internet. Cat's out of the bag on that one -- if your not providing, there are thousands of others who are. Publishers need to get creative about thinking of new business models and thinking about how all their different brand components can serve their community of readers. |
| rulebook | Posted – 12/4/2007 1:50:43 PM | show profile Granitegirl, your ranting is myopic and in some cases (not all), flat out wrong. Other posters can and will refute the bulk of that, but just want to comment on your lambasting of brands: Brands are nothing more than expectations. Some brands do a poor job setting expectations, and therefore are meaningless. Some brands set expectations and then fail to meet them, which leads to failure. Good brands set expectations and maintain (and in some cases surpass) them again and again over time. So be careful when you denounce brands...it's bad brands and vapid brands that are harmful, although I question how harmful they actually are to an entire industry, as bad brands tend to fail naturally, so-so brands provide opportunity for good bands to be resonant. Of course, to what I think part of your point was, it would be helpful if more publishers understood this. I find it ironic that later on in your post, you cite Sports Illustrated and the fact that they used to stand for insightful stories with incredible depth. For along time they embodied that, and the brand was incredibly powerful. The brand acted as a simple, clear message: This logo represents these things, things that my readership understands and embraces. That is the power of a brand. I agree that they have walked away from that recently, and have hence failed to meet the expectations that the brand had established for 50 years. But, to invert parlance from sports: don't hate the game, hate the player. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 4:28:21 PM | show profile Brands are fine. They are not nor should they in any way be confused with journalism. That relationship becomes problematic--as it has. I don't care who believes or disbelieves that journalists and journalism are/should be the watchdogs of our society and the voice for those who go unheard. I agree--people probably DON'T believe that anymore. So what? That doesn't make it wrong, does it? Unpopular beliefs are often the correct ones. Popular beliefs are often the ones that are skewed. God help us if we have no ideals, when it comes to ANY aspect of our lives--especially our careers and chosen profession. But you do your job your way. I'll do mine my way. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 4:32:58 PM | show profile and all those things you said the "sports Illustrated" logo embodied? No. That was what was written in Sports Illustrated, not "the logo". Just like Jayson Blair messed up whatever the "New York Times" logo "stood for" for awhile. Brands are not what make the product excellent. Not when it comes to journalism. The journalists are what make the brand credible, and journalists can come and go. It's just easier to remember where you read something then it is to remember the name of the person who wrote it. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the journalist, not the "logo" that produced the information. When pubs start thinking their "brand" is more important than those who produce it, well, that's where you get your Lucky magazines, your Seventeen magazines, your Sports Illustrated, your US Weeklys and your third and fourth hour of the Today show. |
| rulebook | Posted – 12/4/2007 6:20:53 PM | show profile Arguing with you is tiring, so I'll be brief: All I said is that brands are signposts that set expectations. Sports Illustrated "the brand" once stood for great images, interesting angles, and impeccable sports journalism. When I say the brand, which includes the logo, once "embodied" those things, I?m not white sure how you could disagree. Maybe you weren't reading slowly or carefully. Of course content makes the brand. Or, it breaks the brand. It's great (and naive) that you think that people should be remembering journalist's names.,not brands. Well, a name is a brand just like everything else. When you read say, Klosterman, you know what you are going to get. If you read Klosterman and get a sappy love poem, set in Mumbai and written in Olde English, then that is falling short of your expectations. Just like Sports Illustrated eroded their brand by moving to pop-sports and trying to be ESPN The Magazine-lite. With Golf. This isn't rocket science. Don't blame brands: blame bad journalism that makes them meaningless. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 7:09:57 PM | show profile dude, why bother? You take this board way too seriously. I mean, really. Why get insulting? Look at your post. You insult me from the get go, you don't even know me. All you know are my posts that you apparently take personally. I don't insult people on this board because--it's stupid! It's a recreational media board! WHy you have to insult ME or anyone else who is simply posting a comment on a topic, well, there's obviously something else going on. Brands screw up journalism. I'm not the only person who thinks that. Sure, they are ea necessary evil, because journalism is a consumer product. But journalists do journalism regardless of how much they get paid for it. Contact anyone who has written for Mother Jones in the past 25 years and you'll see this is true. I don't even know wtf you are arguing with me about. Exactly what is so wrong with saying that brands -- "logos" as you call them --will eventually interfere with journalism, the whole point of journalism being to tell the objective truth, to inform objectively? If associated with a brand, that will not happen. But you are far too personally invested in this whole idea to even look at it from any idealistic (read: goal setting) standpoint. What are you, 50 and being forced into retirement? Unhappy with your life and your recent divorce? what? Don't bother reading my posts if they are so tiresome. Obvioulsy something I am saying is hitting a nerve becsue you keep responding (even as you dismiss my opinions). It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to figure that out, now does it? |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 7:11:58 PM | show profile And by the way, however naive it may be, yes, I do watch bylines and I pay attention to them. I also know which magazines rewrite articles or edit heavily and which do not. It helps when you are looking to hire writers for your publication. You learn this shit after working as an editor for a decade or two. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 7:20:15 PM | show profile MY SI point was that it was the writing that got SI the credibility. Now, the heavies at the magazine think its the other way around. The "brand" gives credibility all by itself, so writers can turn in shit about what Tom Brady thinks of the latest Brad Pitt movie etc and call it an "SI Exclusive". My point being no one will read SI or any magazine solely based simply on the fact that it is "SI". No one has, no one ever will. It has to be a good magazine. The reason American magazines are killing themselves is that they generally suck. They're fat and lazy with their "brand" the credibility their "brand" carries, they're not allowing writers to write the magazine articles magazine writers once were famous for: The long, narrative essays , profiles, and investigative stories that brought out all the detail and told an involved story. magazines have tried to copy the internet (by keeping stories brief, boxed up, simple, easy to read), and suck as a result. In the nineties, I could tell you ten magazine articles I read, remember to this day, reread and actually saved. I could tell you who wrote them and which ones won National Magazine Awards (and which ones didn't sadly). I couldn't tell you that of any magazine article I've read recently, save the Rolling Stone Drug War story. |
| rulebook | Posted – 12/4/2007 7:56:29 PM | show profile I apologize if I insulted you. Have a nice evening. |
| flight risk | Posted – 12/4/2007 9:05:46 PM | show profile The overwhelming importance of branding is valid across all industries. And yes, the writers help to create the brand. But they are not the brand. The New York Times is a very strong brand that's been built over 150 years of editors and writers. A few plagiarists like Jayson Blair may mar the reputation in the short term but the newspaper and its clout continue. How many people outside of New York can even name one major columnist in the New York Times? Yet, how many of them would say the NY Times is the biggest and best metro daily in the country? |
| flight risk | Posted – 12/4/2007 9:24:19 PM | show profile To cite the example used. I'm not a big sports fan, and I've never picked up a Sports Illustrated in my life. But I recognize the name of the magazine. If somebody were to quote that magazine in another publication, I would consider that a credible source. That's the power of a brand. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 10:44:33 PM | show profile flight risk, so despite the fact that rick reilly just left SI despite a 3 million dollar contract has no bearing on the SI brand? In your (educated ?) mind? |
| seeattleme | Posted – 12/4/2007 10:48:38 PM | show profile oh and many would argue (those "in the know, anyway" who actually READ both papers ) would argue that the LA Times rivals the NY times for that title. And Jayson Blair isn't the ONLY problem the NY TIMEs has faced. There was the Judith Miller issue--and the NY TIMES magazine story that was "made up" (the kid in Africa). The fact that you are ill-informed is proof of why "branding" works in the industry, but also why "branding" will eventually prove NOT to work, long term. Rulebook, it's pretty obvious, from your posts, that it is I who somehow offended YOU. |
| flight risk | Posted – 12/5/2007 2:29:54 AM | show profile Why so hostile? Isn't this supposed to be an open forum? Magazines and newspapers lose people and acquire new talent all the time. The New York Times will survive as will SI. It's the ebb and flow of publishing. |
| flight risk | Posted – 12/5/2007 3:14:08 AM | show profile Wouldn't it be great if the only opinions that mattered were the people who actually read both the LA and NY Times? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 12/5/2007 4:00:03 AM | show profile --The fact that you are ill-informed is proof of why "branding" works in the industry, but also why "branding" will eventually prove NOT to work, long term-- Ideally, branding isn't about taking some good name and sticking it on shoddy products because you can't get away with it. It means extending the core values of your initial product into related products and arenas. Branding in media is hardly a new concept. There are many magazines, for instance, that have produced their owns lines of books for decades -- Prevention, Time-Life. That's branding. Most big publishers have custom publishing units that leverage their names. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 12/5/2007 4:04:23 AM | show profile --oh and many would argue (those "in the know, anyway" who actually READ both papers ) would argue that the LA Times -- The idea that you need to read a daily print newspaper to be informed is a little archaic. Truth be told, I've been a professional journalist for nearly 30 years, I never read a daily print newspaper, and I've generally found newspapers pretty boring all my life. Even though I worked at one, and have written for the LA Times, NY Times, WSJ and other biggies, I never really liked reading them. When I was writing a syndicated humor column, I had to scan a bunch for ideas to steal, though. |
