Magazine Publishers: Where Do You Stand?
November 24, 2008 by Marcus Grimm
There’s a highly provocative article over at Advertising Age (Really, the type of article I’d love to see from those who say they’re "covering" the magazine industry…) which asks a very poignant question: Do you still believe in the very act, the very business, of publishing?
That big publishers can’t manage to sell enough print ads, in a post-print media economy shadowed by a larger economic meltdown, is not exactly shocking. What is shocking, though, is that they’re essentially saying to scrappier, upstart online competitors: Take our business, please! We’re throwing in the towel! If we can’t play by the old rules of publishing — the profit-soaked, imperial model with endless layers of coddled management ensconced in luxe trophy offices – then we don’t want to play at all!
This reads a little harsh, until you look at a recent article at FOLIO (naturally, of course, about a title folding) in which a representative says, "We fully plan to bring it back when the economy turns around.â€
While this type of thinking makes all the sense in the world in the boardroom, doesn’t it also read as a blatant attempt to commoditize the concept of specialized audience, which – as Turro has pointed out – is what really makes magazines special in the first place?
Make no mistake: those magazines that haven’t listened to advertisers will have a tough battle in ’09, but those uninterested in their audiences probably won’t even get the chance to fight.
Hi, Marcus–No offense to Mr. Dumenco, and his column might be provocative, but it lacks a certain coherence. He criticizes Time Inc.’s (admittedly) uneven record for moving brands online. He says:
· Time Inc.’s efforts are half-hearted. He says the company is ceding its
business to “scrappier, upstart ONLINE competitors.â€
· He notes that big publishers “can’t manage to sell enough print ads, in a
POST-PRINT media economy.â€
· He adds that there is a large audience on the Web, looking to be served
editorially.
But then, in the very next sentence, he says, “Again, I’m not talking about
print vs. online — the slow death of print is beside the point here.â€
Nevermind the sentence-to-sentence contradiction. It’s the conclusion that’s
really incredible. So the single biggest media shift in 100 years–the one
that’s causing a major recalibration in the print-magazine industry and the
possible death of the newspaper industry–is beside the point? What?
He also says, “I’m just asking: Are you willing to radically adjust your
business model precisely because you still believe in the act of
publishing?â€
But then he says it’s not about downsizing measures that bleed vitality from a brand. (And remember, it’s already not about the shift from print to Web.)
If that kind of radical adjustment doesn’t mean an entrepreneurial response
to scrappy online upstarts, and a massive downsizing from the
“profit-soaked, imperial model with endless layers of coddled management
ensconced in luxe trophy offices,†what the heck does it mean?
I guess the answer is massively downsize from opulent indulgence to scrappy
upstart, only do it in a nice way.
Listen, I think Mr. Dumenco has a point. The magazine industry is spotty at
best when it comes to adjusting to the realities of today’s media world.
It’s just that the shift from print to online is PRECISELY the point, and
the only way to adjust is to make the kinds of decisions Time Inc. did with
Cottage Living. The real challenge is not to wring hands about the shutdown of a big magazine, but to actually figure out the tough restructuring moves
associated with multimedia publishing.