Not bad. It needs a good example of an advertizer that's bringing publishing in-house. Cite a compelling instance for us, so we'll have a concrete example in mind of what you mean.
Then, suggest a specific counter-strategy the poor magazine publisher could employ. Your closing question--what would you send them?--is great. But flesh it out by answering that question for the victim of whatever advertizer-encroachment you cite in the earlier example.
joshklein
· 4 months ago
Thanks Jason, nice thoughts here. That question was not intended to be in closing -- well, only closing for the preview. The real meat of the manifesto is going to be in answering that question.
You're absolutely right that some specific examples are in order. I'd love to use a Fortune 500 example, but I don't think there really are any in the sense I'm talking about, although there are great lessons to be learned from the "direct response" businesses.
In terms of smaller companies, I should go to my old example of Wine Library / Gary Vaynerchuk, the wine retailer turned internet video superstar.
What about examples on the other end of the spectrum - do we know any magazines that are already doing it right?
Jason Black
· 3 months ago
Niche content magazines, membership magazines, and magazines that provide extremely high quality general interest content are still doing ok. Examples:
niche: Science News -- although they have changed recently to adopt new internet-based practices, their paper mag is still great.
membership: Toastmaster (the membership mag of Toastmasters, Int'l) -- the content is kind of mediocre, but they have a captive audience. People are members (or not) of Toastmasters, Int'l for reasons having nothing to do with the magazine itself. That is to say, their circulation is not strongly correlated with the qualityof their content or the quantity of their advertizers.
high-quality: National Geographic -- last I checked, they're still publishing and still doing well (although this is only perception; I have no actual data to back that up). Their content is essentially impossible to emulate, so people keep subscribing.
JeffreyJDavis
· 4 months ago
Nice post.
If we back up and think in terms of the actual value delivered (Specialized, timely information for a group of loyalists) rather than the format of the delivery (folded up stapled glossy paper delivered via mail vs paginated glossy copy delivered via Wordpress) isn't the blog just an evolution of the magazine or fanzine?
I don't think that the advertisers polluted this model, I just think that technology enabled an army of blog editors and journalists who were willing to devote their talents for nothing more than a paycheck of attention. That's not a bad thing (as long as you're not a magazine publisher.)
I don't think the magazines are dead, they are just running out of time to figure out how to catch up with the evolution of their environment and their customer needs. I still subscribe to Harvard Business Review and 4 different kiteboarding magazines. The places I read magazines (on planes, at lunch tables, in the bathroom) are more conducive to a paper format than electronic delivery. But I'm sure that will change as new ebook technologies emerge. I seriously doubt that I will ever subscribe to another paper format music magazine again, as blog's serve my long-tail musical tastes much better than a mass paper vehicle ever did or ever could.
@JeffreyJDavis
Tumblemoose
· 3 months ago
Yikes. Okay, what WOULD I send them?
I'll have to pay attention to the comments to answer that because I'm not certain of the answer.
Very thought provoking post.
George
graphiker
· 3 months ago
It may be impossible for me to understand the death of magazines. I still feel a sense of excitement when my favorite magazines land in my mailbox. Clearly, I'm in a dwindling minority. What would I do, if I owned a financially troubled magazine and a list of several million people fitting a specific demographic? I'd send my editorial staff on a conference tour around the country, and use that subscriber list to send invitations to my readership. I'd capitalize on the loyalty and community that has been built over the years of publishing. Perhaps print publishing needs to be expanded so a magazine is only one part of a larger publishing model, including web content, conferences, specialty merchandising, advertisers recognized for the quality of their products, reader networking opportunities. It's a strategy that some magazines like the New Yorker look like they are embarking upon. I've been hearing about the death of print for at least twenty years. Still, nothing is as portable, as inexpensive, as nearly indestructible, as a magazine. The batteries don't die and you can use it to protect you from the rain. Try that with a Kindle.
David Sutula
· 3 months ago
NOTE: The following is an excerpt from an email I just wrote in response to an email thread that was sparked by this blog post. The email originated with a client of my agency (‘peeps creative, akron, ohio) who does business in the trade publishing industry. We, as a team, are wrestling with clarifying our online objectives and strategies moving forward:
While I know that this article is most specifically about custom publishing in a physical form, there is an implication that the web is one of the ‘cheaper’ alternative to trying to gain attention in a magazine or by any traditional media.
The point has been raised in this email thread that companies (specifically your advertisers) can self-publish in pixels or in print, but these self-publications are, by their very nature, one-sided and biased. I agree completely with these sentiments, but only if we accept the premise that we’re talking about your standard “SAAB MAGAZINE” types of publications, or – on the web - product microsites. I also agree that consumers are less likely to use these sources as trusted and credible sources.
But here’s the thing: Just like anything else, companies are learning and adapting. Early adopters of self-publishing are learning that the consumer is not responding as well to these sorts of communications for exactly the reason that common sense dictates – namely, a pub that is written by a company will be favorable to that company. If Teddy Kennedy had the opportunity to write his own obit, how much space do you think he’d devote to Chappaquiddick?
What is happening is that companies are migrating to the oldest sales tactic in the world – word-of-mouth. Used to be that there were two sources of product knowledge – the opinions of your friends and acquaintances on a micro-level and the media on a macro-level.
Today there are still just two sources, but the levels are reversed. Fragmentation of the media, caused by the exponential increase in the number of available channels and vehicles has caused the audience for any particular media source to shrink, so that it has become more ‘local’ in nature – that is, it reaches far fewer people than it used to. It has become VERY expensive to reach people through the media, whether independent or self-published.
Word-of-mouth, though, has become macro in scale. It’s a global conversation hosted by the web and companies are realizing that there is no way to stop that. Smart companies have stopped trying to shape the message and force it on their prospects, rather they are taking part in a conversation. They know that the only hope they have of winning the minds and hearts of their prospects and customers is to be there – actively participating in the conversation.
The public is becoming more and more savvy. They get it. An unsupported negative comment is given less credibility than a company slogan, and a supported negative comment is taken seriously. If the company is smart, they’re not trying to silence the nay-sayers, the company is viewing that as an opportunity to display its ability to service the customer by responding directly to the comment and taking action.
Personally, I would happily do business any day of the week with a company who’s product has a 20% failure rate, but a 100% track record of making it right.
I could go on, and I’m sure some would argue that I already have, but we at ‘peeps are passionate about this point. When it comes to a company’s brand, the #1 thing that a company must realize is that they DO NOT own the brand, they are only its stewards. The brand belongs to the people who use it, because that’s what it is – the consumer’s gut feeling about what the brand means. The smart company realizes this and stops trying to write a monologue – preferring to take part in the dialogue.
Joe Pulizzi
· 3 months ago
Josh...I like your points here. If you check out the free excerpt of my book [found here http://getcontentgetcustomers.com/], we've been discussing this for a while. Point is, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to tell the difference between media companies [as you say, magazine producers] and brands. Brands are publishing, and to stay competitive, media companies are developing products and services to compete [sort of, competing back, as you say, with the brands].
Something magazines don't like, but need to consider, is the idea of publishing on behalf of their advertisers. All companies must consider themselves publishers, but most are not good at it [it's not easy to create an ongoing editorial story] or they can't take their sales hats off when storytelling. So, brands are looking for help in creating their own media channels. Magazines that know their markets well should be doing this for them. I'm seeing in more and more markets, the magazine becoming a loss leader, and profit is being made from online products and marketing services.
The magazine can still serve a purpose as part of the business model, but the profit is coming from new and interesting places. Not easy, but lots of opportunity.
All Comments
Then, suggest a specific counter-strategy the poor magazine publisher could employ. Your closing question--what would you send them?--is great. But flesh it out by answering that question for the victim of whatever advertizer-encroachment you cite in the earlier example.
You're absolutely right that some specific examples are in order. I'd love to use a Fortune 500 example, but I don't think there really are any in the sense I'm talking about, although there are great lessons to be learned from the "direct response" businesses.
In terms of smaller companies, I should go to my old example of Wine Library / Gary Vaynerchuk, the wine retailer turned internet video superstar.
What about examples on the other end of the spectrum - do we know any magazines that are already doing it right?
niche: Science News -- although they have changed recently to adopt new internet-based practices, their paper mag is still great.
membership: Toastmaster (the membership mag of Toastmasters, Int'l) -- the content is kind of mediocre, but they have a captive audience. People are members (or not) of Toastmasters, Int'l for reasons having nothing to do with the magazine itself. That is to say, their circulation is not strongly correlated with the qualityof their content or the quantity of their advertizers.
high-quality: National Geographic -- last I checked, they're still publishing and still doing well (although this is only perception; I have no actual data to back that up). Their content is essentially impossible to emulate, so people keep subscribing.
If we back up and think in terms of the actual value delivered (Specialized, timely information for a group of loyalists) rather than the format of the delivery (folded up stapled glossy paper delivered via mail vs paginated glossy copy delivered via Wordpress) isn't the blog just an evolution of the magazine or fanzine?
I don't think that the advertisers polluted this model, I just think that technology enabled an army of blog editors and journalists who were willing to devote their talents for nothing more than a paycheck of attention. That's not a bad thing (as long as you're not a magazine publisher.)
I don't think the magazines are dead, they are just running out of time to figure out how to catch up with the evolution of their environment and their customer needs. I still subscribe to Harvard Business Review and 4 different kiteboarding magazines. The places I read magazines (on planes, at lunch tables, in the bathroom) are more conducive to a paper format than electronic delivery. But I'm sure that will change as new ebook technologies emerge. I seriously doubt that I will ever subscribe to another paper format music magazine again, as blog's serve my long-tail musical tastes much better than a mass paper vehicle ever did or ever could.
@JeffreyJDavis
I'll have to pay attention to the comments to answer that because I'm not certain of the answer.
Very thought provoking post.
George
I've been hearing about the death of print for at least twenty years. Still, nothing is as portable, as inexpensive, as nearly indestructible, as a magazine. The batteries don't die and you can use it to protect you from the rain. Try that with a Kindle.
While I know that this article is most specifically about custom publishing in a physical form, there is an implication that the web is one of the ‘cheaper’ alternative to trying to gain attention in a magazine or by any traditional media.
The point has been raised in this email thread that companies (specifically your advertisers) can self-publish in pixels or in print, but these self-publications are, by their very nature, one-sided and biased. I agree completely with these sentiments, but only if we accept the premise that we’re talking about your standard “SAAB MAGAZINE” types of publications, or – on the web - product microsites. I also agree that consumers are less likely to use these sources as trusted and credible sources.
But here’s the thing: Just like anything else, companies are learning and adapting. Early adopters of self-publishing are learning that the consumer is not responding as well to these sorts of communications for exactly the reason that common sense dictates – namely, a pub that is written by a company will be favorable to that company. If Teddy Kennedy had the opportunity to write his own obit, how much space do you think he’d devote to Chappaquiddick?
What is happening is that companies are migrating to the oldest sales tactic in the world – word-of-mouth. Used to be that there were two sources of product knowledge – the opinions of your friends and acquaintances on a micro-level and the media on a macro-level.
Today there are still just two sources, but the levels are reversed. Fragmentation of the media, caused by the exponential increase in the number of available channels and vehicles has caused the audience for any particular media source to shrink, so that it has become more ‘local’ in nature – that is, it reaches far fewer people than it used to. It has become VERY expensive to reach people through the media, whether independent or self-published.
Word-of-mouth, though, has become macro in scale. It’s a global conversation hosted by the web and companies are realizing that there is no way to stop that. Smart companies have stopped trying to shape the message and force it on their prospects, rather they are taking part in a conversation. They know that the only hope they have of winning the minds and hearts of their prospects and customers is to be there – actively participating in the conversation.
The public is becoming more and more savvy. They get it. An unsupported negative comment is given less credibility than a company slogan, and a supported negative comment is taken seriously. If the company is smart, they’re not trying to silence the nay-sayers, the company is viewing that as an opportunity to display its ability to service the customer by responding directly to the comment and taking action.
Personally, I would happily do business any day of the week with a company who’s product has a 20% failure rate, but a 100% track record of making it right.
I could go on, and I’m sure some would argue that I already have, but we at ‘peeps are passionate about this point. When it comes to a company’s brand, the #1 thing that a company must realize is that they DO NOT own the brand, they are only its stewards. The brand belongs to the people who use it, because that’s what it is – the consumer’s gut feeling about what the brand means. The smart company realizes this and stops trying to write a monologue – preferring to take part in the dialogue.
Something magazines don't like, but need to consider, is the idea of publishing on behalf of their advertisers. All companies must consider themselves publishers, but most are not good at it [it's not easy to create an ongoing editorial story] or they can't take their sales hats off when storytelling. So, brands are looking for help in creating their own media channels. Magazines that know their markets well should be doing this for them. I'm seeing in more and more markets, the magazine becoming a loss leader, and profit is being made from online products and marketing services.
The magazine can still serve a purpose as part of the business model, but the profit is coming from new and interesting places. Not easy, but lots of opportunity.