Comments on: Thinking About Magazines

By: Stephen Dill

Stephen Dill — Sat, 03 May 2008 18:56:10 +0000

To the question, what is the economic motivation? Traffic. If I post a video of mine to National Geographic’s website, you can bet money I am going to promote the heck out of that within my community for the association and glamor of my content being there among those professionals. And who would not want traffic.

Then there is the G2 value – market intelligence. Why rely on one editor to determine the next hot column or article? Why not tap into 16 million readers and amateur naturalists?

I suspect this is just a matter of time. The print will always have a place in the definition of a timeless brand. With the growth of online magazines and newspapers are discovering they can publish so much more than “what fits” in the constrained print environment. Now, with the rise in social media, they will catch on to the “We Are Smarter Than Me” potential and add a whole new dimension to their brand – and history.

Good question Chris – thanks for the effort!

By: Penny Haynes

Penny Haynes — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:27:38 +0000

This question is right up my alley. I have really considered whether or not to approach magazines like this with my software, which does what you say – it lets the community not only upload audio and video and post text, it actually helps them easily create multimedia so they have something to upload.

The real trick, as others have said, is that the audience who is still receiving these magazines aren’t that multimedia or social media savvy. Most probably don’t go to their magazine’s site. Even if they allowed User Generated Content, most users wouldn’t know how to create it in order to participate.

Since the behemoths of the print world are slow to join the social media world, first THEY would need to be taught what it is before they could offer it attractively enough to entice their readers to participate. I think the real key to getting social media and internet novices into the online world is by planting someone within their existing community to take them by the hand and show them what to do and explain why they should bother doing it.

By: Noah David Simon

Noah David Simon — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:28:40 +0000

as someone who has worked in publishing on the marketing end of things I would say that publishing is hurting and it isn’t go to be fixed. The big fish will sell advertising on networks and the content will not be rewarded. The identities of these magazine’s are going to become an archive that will become a museum. Bigger named identities will survive and will be bought as charity projects for web portals, and will only find a commercial audience with regular video broadcasts and other hot content. It is silly to talk about turning Woman’s Day or RedBook into a popular blog when we have web identities that are very marketable like Susan Reynolds. As for AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARP it will survive because it is an organization that represents an age group that decides elections.

By: Jerry Hart

Jerry Hart — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:43:23 +0000

I am staggered at the “Fat Cat” syndrome. Meaning, these companies are resisting what will not only help them evolve, but also survive against online magazines that have no equity yet credited by Google and their fans as THE AUTHORITY of a a niche.

If they fail to evolve they may die.

Look at the numbers. US Newspaper circulation is down 8 million people over 17 years…at the same time, the total population of households in the US has doubled. This is an industry in trouble.

The only way I see helping them is to find only the ones who have an interest in making a radical transparent paradigm shift. If they don’t get that….move along, there’s nothing to see there, please keep moving.

By: Jerry Hart

Jerry Hart — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:42:43 +0000

I am staggered at the “Fat Cat” syndrome. Meaning, these companies are resisting what will not only help them evolve, but also survive against online magazines that had no equity yet are seen as THE AUTHORITY of a a niche. If they fail to evolve they may die.

Look at the numbers. US Newspaper circulation is down 8 million people over 17 years…at the same time, the total population of households in the US has doubled. This is an industry in trouble.

By: BarbaraKB

BarbaraKB — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:45:32 +0000

Where to begin? How about that the first two in the list are not paid subscription so the numbers are deceiving. Reader’s Digest has *halved* it’s circ. in the last 10 years so, truly, it’s a dying magazine. The other *women’s* magazines have also halved their circ. in the last 10 years. Dying with the current generation. NG is interesting ‘cuz it has a very successful TV and video and online venture but could be better. AAA is also a free sub. Long story short: wrong list of magazines. Come up with a better list of active magazines and then I’ll tell you how they will survive online. Others are replacing them. Nature of the best in the magazine world: I do not read what my parents read.

By: Webconomist

Webconomist — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:24:29 +0000

I’ve been thunking on this, stewing almost…magazines are far from dead. I don’t think they will die. The nature of the “good” or product brings inherent value given it is tactile and associates a different “experience” than being online does. Sitting quietly at lunch reading a mag. Less eye strain and easier reading. Magazines will change, must change, must integrate new mediums, but they will do better than newspapers, which will die as dailies. eventually. I spend hours a week online, but I also read Fast Company, The Economist, Business 2.0 regularly. Especially on a plane with a good cup of tea and a chocolate bar…

By: anna

anna — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:32:06 +0000

This is so funny to me because just yesterday I was thinking about magazines and how I used to read them and how I no longer read them. And I was wondering about the future of magazines. And I think that those that don’t adapt will die out within a generation or two at the most.

By: David Schatsky

David Schatsky — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:05:23 +0000

Most people value quality over participation (though they’d like both). When choosing a Web site to watch video, consumers are 14x more likely to say they value high quality video than the ability to upload their own video.

Jupiter’s data on this (subscription required):
http://www.jupiterresearch.com/quantify/pages/ViewDataItem/collectionId/3138870/documentId/3128645

Beyond that, it’s a demographic thing. Those magazines skew heavily toward older readers, who are much less likely to upload videos or even post comments than younger users.

According to a recent Jupiter survey, consumers 55+ are half as likely to post comments on Web sites than those 18-24.

Jupiter’s data on this (subscription required):
http://www.jupiterresearch.com/quantify/pages/ViewDataItem/collectionId/2884775/documentId/2870986

If media targeted at older consumers aggressively embraced social and participatory tools, they could change behavior a bit, no doubt. But you need to start from how behaviors vary by demographics to understand the environment you’d be introducing those tools.

Thanks for raising the topic.

By: Leif Hansen

Leif Hansen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:40:26 +0000

Here’s a little video response mashup of this page, http://tinyurl.com/68ljph

Thanks for keeping us thinking Chris (and perhaps helping you in your consulting with with these kinds of businesses…wink wink.)
-Leif
http://www.SparkSocialMedia.com