JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • Home
  • Portugal 2023
  • About
  • Gallery
    • This Was STC Santorini 2023
    • This Was STC Miami 2021
    • This Was STC Santorini 2018
    • This Was STC Miami 2016
    • This Was STC Santorini 2015
    • This Was STC Miami 2015 – Temple House
    • This Was STC Miami 2014
    • This Was STC L.A. 2013
    • This Was STC Bahamas 2013
    • This Was Miami – STC Oct 13-14, 2012 Seminar / Workshop
    • This Was STC Miami 2012
    • This Was STC Vegas 2011 – 2
    • This Was STC Vegas 2011 – 1
    • This Was Miami 2011
  • Model Search
  • Store
  • Blog
  • Contact

Blog

Magazines Don’t Have a Digital Problem, They Have a Bundling Problem

Posted on: 08-19-2012 Posted in: Photography

New media and publishing dynamics have changed the economics for magazines to the extent that it is simply not possible to continue with existing models. Much of the issue is that magazine publishers are misidentifying their problems, striving to find new ways to distribute their packages without acknowledging that those very packages are fast becoming relics, a testament to a time past, when publishers had the power of platform and could demand that readers come to them. The latest figures prove that approach is no longer tenable.

In the first half of this year, magazine newsstand circulations dropped 10 percent, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. “When 10 percent of your retail buyers depart over the course of a year, something fundamental is at work,” wrote David Carr in his New York Times media column yesterday. Just as bad, advertising is down 8.8 percent compared to the same time last year, according to the Publishers Information Bureau.

Lest you think this is just a paper problem, keep a close eye on what’s happening with tablet-only magazines. If publishers thought tablets were going to be the saviors of their industry, they must be really bummed out by recent news that The Daily is cutting a third of its staff and the Huffington Post has decided to stop charging for its iPad magazine after just five issues. Working on the principle that three events equal a trend and two pass for a story, AdWeek last week asked “Are Tablet-Only Publications Dead?”.

It’s far too early to say they’re dead, but there’s good reason to believe that the very idea of “tablet-only” has limited purchase. Magazine content might not want to be free – it costs too much to want to simply give itself away – but it certainly wants to flow freely to wherever the readers are.

Ten years ago, those readers were on the bus, on the couch, in waiting rooms, and on the beach – places where paper could dominate, and where PCs and even laptops couldn’t offer competitive longform reading experiences. Today, tablets and smartphones accomplish what paper owned in those years, but with added benefits – no pages that flutter in the wind, instant access to information from all over the world, supreme portability, and the ability to immediately share content with friends.

On tablets and smartphones, though, the package no longer makes sense. We humans still love to read – and since getting a Kindle, and then an iPhone, and then an iPad, I now read more magazine journalism than ever – but we want to do it on our terms. We will always need editors to commission and shape strong stories, but we don’t need them so much to bundle disparate pieces of content into one immutable chunk. Instead, many of the most savvy readers prefer to consume magazine journalism piece by piece, taking note of the source from which it sprung, but not necessarily paying heed to whatever else happened to be placed alongside it in that source that particular week or month. Often what is more important is who wrote it, what it’s about, or when it happened to fall into view.

I haven’t got a focus group to prove this, but I would bet that anyone who uses reading apps such as Longform, Instapaper, Readability, and Pocket prefers those content delivery mechanisms to bundled magazines. These platforms allow readers to select and sort content in a way that works for them, from disparate sources, without having to deal with cumbersome digital magazine files and swathes of packaged content that simply isn’t relevant, or of interest.

Defenders of the bundle insist that “discovery” and serendipity are vital aspects of the magazine reading experience. And I agree. But I don’t agree that the package is the best way of delivering on that discovery promise. Twitter, Facebook, Flipboard, and Pulse all do a better job at delivering “discovery,” because, when used well, they expose us to a wider range of tastes and interests than the editorial boards of specific publications. And actually, they also accommodate the tastes and interests of those editorial boards, because magazines like the New Yorker and Newsweek and Vogue and whoever else can take full advantage of those platforms to drive people to their content.

What magazines have to get used to is that they’re now competing against other, leaner and sometimes more digitally savvy, curators and publishers in the content marketplace. Many in the latter group are willing to give their content away for free, and none insists – or relies – on a bundled product that is sold on a newsstand, be it virtual or otherwise.

Set-ups like Longform, Longreads, Brain Pickings, Dave Pell’s NextDraft, and Conor Friedersdorf’s Best of Journaliam take care of interest arousal and curation, all while directing traffic to traditional publishers. These experiences don’t require hefty apps or heavily designed products – most of the time, they point to or present content that is basic text and pictures. They satisfy the need to read and be informed without demanding that readers commit to downloading a heavy package every week or month.

Traditional magazine publishers have to both take advantage of and compete with these services. Ultimately, they will lose the bundling aspect of their model that has in the past sustained their businesses. They will have to adapt to, and capitalize on, a new environment in which their core editing and curation strengths are in demand, but in which they can no longer determine the mode of delivery.

In the future, magazine brands will be producers, endorsers, commissioners, curators, designers, and promoters – but they won’t primarily be bundlers. The bundle may still exist, but it will be a much smaller piece of the magazine business than it is today. The printed product, for instance, might ultimately be a prestige item distributed occasionally as a supplement to, or showcase of, the brand’s best work according to a particular theme or period of time. It’s difficult to envisage a printed product that in 10 years will be profitable when produced on a weekly or monthly basis.

This is bad news for magazines, but it’s not end news. Publishers are now coming to the realization that their current models are unsustainable in the tablet and smartphone era. People are going to lose jobs, magazines are going to close down, and the world will be poorer for quality content.

But the game isn’t over for journalists and editors – it’ll just be leaner and different. They will have to produce content that can move easily outside the borders of pages and apps, content that can be shared – even purchased – at the click of a button, content that can live on the strength of its reporting and writing.

The good news is that journalists and editors today are already producing a ton of content that qualifies according to those parameters. The challenge that remains is how to most effectively deliver it to readers while still extracting a dollar from their product. That may be done with micropayments, or it might be done – as suggested before – via a Netflix-style all-you-can-eat model.

That reality might mean magazine publishers will ultimately preside over businesses that are just a shadow of their former selves. But the other option is likely even less palatable. The period of time in which magazines can get away with losing 10 percent of their newsstand circulation is extremely limited.

Source

  • Popular Posts
  • Related Posts
  • Write for us sponsored posts
    Write for us sponsored posts
  • Learning how to take the best photography
    Learning how to take the best photography
  • Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model
    Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model
  • How Your Photography Portfolio Can Help You Avoid Rejection
    How Your Photography Portfolio Can Help You Avoid Rejection
  • Write for us sponsored posts
    Write for us sponsored posts
  • Learning how to take the best photography
    Learning how to take the best photography
  • Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model
    Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model
  • How Your Photography Portfolio Can Help You Avoid Rejection
    How Your Photography Portfolio Can Help You Avoid Rejection
  • (2) Comments
  • (0) Trackbacks
  1. Scott Kennelly09-05-12

    “The World will be poorer for quality content” huh? I don’t think so. I think it will be richer. It already is. There seems to be more content, so the quality content may be less obvious, but I think there already is MORE quality content, making the World richer for quality content right now. The future is only going to get better, when publishers finally embrace what is happening the way they should, and do what they should have done five years ago . . . concentrate on building it, rather than acting like they are afraid of it.

    (reply)
  2. Derrick09-05-12

    Agree and disagree, I think there is a problem in delivery platform more than anything else. As far content goes … world is over-saturated with less of a quality content. I don’t see that anybody is afraid of anything as Scott suggests. It’s more about wild-west style digital revolution that still has to find its performance path to maximize everything.

    (reply)

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Twitter Feed

    Twitter not configured.

Archives

  • February 2025
  • August 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • April 2022
  • September 2021
  • June 2021
  • April 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • September 2010

Search Blog

Recent Posts

  • Write for us sponsored posts Write for us sponsored posts
    02-20-2025
  • Learning how to take the best photography Learning how to take the best photography
    02-20-2025
  • Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model Sarah Lyons - From STC Attendee to FHM Cover Model
    08-17-2023

Popular Posts

Every photographer has a story to tell …
© 2011-2023 Shoot The Centerfold. All Rights Reserved
  • Privacy Policy
  • Customer Support
  • Ordering Details FAQ
  • Payment Methods
  • Return Policy FAQ
  • License Agreement
TwitterStumbleUponRedditDiggdel.icio.usFacebookLinkedIn