Are print magazines a safer bet than newspapers?

I’ve probably spent as much time thinking about the future of print magazines in the couple of weeks since I left the magazine industry as I did when I was in it!

The reason is that newspaper consultant/critic Jeff Jarvis recently asked ‘Are magazines doomed?‘ in an article inspired by the closure of Portfolio magazine just as publisher Conde Nast launched a UK version of Wired.

The comments on his article had an interesting split between those for and against print as a medium generally, as well as a few questions around the revenue streams employed in magazine publishing.

My hypothesis is that print magazines will prove more resilient than their newspaper counterparts, but eventually they’ll share the same fate due to a twin pincer movement.

Their resilience is in part due to the difference in content, and the difference in format. The majority of magazines are providing something in addition/as an alternative to the breaking news that the internet disrupts so effectively. Their strength is not only in providing analysis, insight and features, but also in conveying this information with fantastic photography and design. And by doing so, they can provide a far more engaged audience interested in a specific topic.

Here come the pincers…

The first claw closing on the magazine industry is that the online world is evolving far more rapidly, both in terms of community, as Jeff points to, but also in terms of more content-driven websites and blogs. As the market for blogs fighting to break news in niche topics has become increasingly saturated, and coincidentally many more journalists and freelancers are looking outside of print following recession-instigated redundancies, so the levels of insight and expertise available online will increase.

It’s easy to forget in the tech/online bubble that the ‘mainstream’ mass readerships are still located mainly in print, even as they start to move away in many cases. And as much as the online world can criticise traditional display advertising for irrelevancy, digital monetisation still needs to evolve in effectiveness around content.

But the people best placed to effectively make a decent wage online are those experienced journalists and writers who are able to produce specialist books and in-depth articles – those who are also most valuable to print editorial teams. As they increasingly look at digital opportunities, that’s where the biggest content threat will come.

The other pincer?

The other defence of magazines is due to the format – the incredible photography and design which can inspire as it’s displayed on your coffee table.

The problem is that the quality of a format is not a guarantee of it’s survival. While those magazines favoured for their design qualities will doubtless be the most resilient for the future, the fact is that the utlity of digital formats for accessing and sharing information will overcome the quality of the pile of magazines left gathering dust in a box under the bed.

And that’s assuming that technology stays roughly equivalent to what is available right now.

Even as I was about to write this post, a post by Om Malik appeared in my RSS feed – Vogue on Your eReader? New E-paper Tech Will Make It Happen. It happens that a group of researchers at the University of Cincinnatti in Ohio have created a new technology which allows them to recreate the colour and brightness of print. The link has a full explanation, but not only is it much closer to the beauty of print, it also is far more energy efficient than the current Kindle-type displays.

So what’s the answer then?

There are two very likely scenarios for print magazines in the next decade or less. One is that very small run, niche print magazines might survive with subscriptions, display advertising and additional revenue streams due to cult levels of devotion.

The second is that magazines will increasingly follow the ‘digital only’ route which newspapers are being forced into, and we’ll see some find ways to monetise more effectively than display advertising. The others will become marginalised or disappear due to the increased expertise of the new competitors they’ll suddenly discover that have been on the web for years already…

  • http://neilperkin.typepad.com/ neilperkin

    Interesting post Dan. I think the other great advantage that magazines have which is not mentioned (Jeff didn’t talk about this either) is the insight that magazine editors and owners have of their audiences. Jeff is right when he says that magazines are the original community medium – but few people know their audience as well as an editor does. And I’m not talking about the kind of insight that comes from data or numbers – more the unique insight that comes from shared passion, in depth understanding, the subtleties that come from really understanding tone, interests, priorities. You’ll know all this, but I think it is a strength that is unique and often underplayed.

  • http://neilperkin.typepad.com/ neilperkin

    Interesting post Dan. I think the other great advantage that magazines have which is not mentioned (Jeff didn’t talk about this either) is the insight that magazine editors and owners have of their audiences. Jeff is right when he says that magazines are the original community medium – but few people know their audience as well as an editor does. And I’m not talking about the kind of insight that comes from data or numbers – more the unique insight that comes from shared passion, in depth understanding, the subtleties that come from really understanding tone, interests, priorities. You’ll know all this, but I think it is a strength that is unique and often underplayed.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Actually, this could be the first time we actually disagree on something!

    I left out the editorial/audience relationship mainly because it’s not something inherent to magazines – good magazine editors and editorial teams definitely have an immense knowledge of their subjects and audiences, but then again, community founders and admins, bloggers, etc all have the same types of access, if not more…

    And that’s also not taking into account the ability for friend filtering – and those within you Dunbar number which share your interest – for instance in my case, motorcycling, are even more likely to know exactly which bikes I prefer etc. And they’re not trying to also cater for another 20,000 or 100,000 other people at the same time!

    Shared passion is essential to a good magazine, but it’s even more essential to a self-forming group around a shared interest…

    It’s why I have a slightly problem with Dave Cushman’s latest post on finding something you own which can’t be disrupted by a community – much of my work is more focused on aiding and building on those exact disruptions to be best placed for the future…

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thorton

    Actually, this could be the first time we actually disagree on something!

    I left out the editorial/audience relationship mainly because it’s not something inherent to magazines – good magazine editors and editorial teams definitely have an immense knowledge of their subjects and audiences, but then again, community founders and admins, bloggers, etc all have the same types of access, if not more…

    And that’s also not taking into account the ability for friend filtering – and those within you Dunbar number which share your interest – for instance in my case, motorcycling, are even more likely to know exactly which bikes I prefer etc. And they’re not trying to also cater for another 20,000 or 100,000 other people at the same time!

    Shared passion is essential to a good magazine, but it’s even more essential to a self-forming group around a shared interest…

    It’s why I have a slightly problem with Dave Cushman’s latest post on finding something you own which can’t be disrupted by a community – much of my work is more focused on aiding and building on those exact disruptions to be best placed for the future…

  • http://www.uc.edu/news Wendy

    My first reaction was to agree with Neil Perkin (and I still do). I also like the “vetting” that goes on in the old-fashioned form of print journalism — but I think that’s a sign of my age (over 50). My generation wants my news screened, with a quality check. I’m willing to wait for that quality. My sons’ generation wants instantaneous news and they get annoyed with me when I ask them “But do you know if you can trust the source?” They are willing to sacrifice credibility for immediacy. I’m not.

    Great dialogue and great post. By the way, here’s more info on the technology that led to the discussion about full-color electronic readers: http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=10068.

  • http://www.uc.edu/news Wendy

    My first reaction was to agree with Neil Perkin (and I still do). I also like the “vetting” that goes on in the old-fashioned form of print journalism — but I think that’s a sign of my age (over 50). My generation wants my news screened, with a quality check. I’m willing to wait for that quality. My sons’ generation wants instantaneous news and they get annoyed with me when I ask them “But do you know if you can trust the source?” They are willing to sacrifice credibility for immediacy. I’m not.

    Great dialogue and great post. By the way, here’s more info on the technology that led to the discussion about full-color electronic readers: http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=10068.

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thornton

    Hi Wendy,
    Many thanks for the comment, and I agree that there is a huge amount of value in the vetting of the journalistic process.
    In fact, online it’s more important than ever for journalists to be interpreting and adding value to the huge wealth of realtime information.
    I’m just not convinced that there’s a benefit to having that editorial screening in print rather than digital format, or that it adds enough value for me to pick print over digital in it’s absence.
    I do think that there needs to be some reward for online journalists holding themselves to higher standards, and it’s not yet clear whether the business models will support enough quality content in the long term, but that’s why lots of experimentation is immediately needed!

  • http://www.thewayoftheweb.net Dan Thorton

    Hi Wendy,
    Many thanks for the comment, and I agree that there is a huge amount of value in the vetting of the journalistic process.
    In fact, online it’s more important than ever for journalists to be interpreting and adding value to the huge wealth of realtime information.
    I’m just not convinced that there’s a benefit to having that editorial screening in print rather than digital format, or that it adds enough value for me to pick print over digital in it’s absence.
    I do think that there needs to be some reward for online journalists holding themselves to higher standards, and it’s not yet clear whether the business models will support enough quality content in the long term, but that’s why lots of experimentation is immediately needed!

  • http://platform.idiomag.com Andrew

    Very interesting points all round… I think Wendy is on to something by highlighting that there is a shift in expectation from online news. Current usage trends would point to network recommendation, immediacy, and brevity being the main factors in popular content. Of course, everyone (including me) will cry out that we need longer form, well-researched pieces – but are audiences reading them? I’d love to hear from a publisher that is seeing an upswing in consumption of that type of content!

    It’s all very well saying that a magazine editor has an in-depth understanding of his/her audience – but what if a) it can be replicated by a collection of readers who now blog, or b) the audience doesn’t value that anymore! And I’m certainly not saying that the latter (or even the former) is a “good” thing in terms of quality content creation.

    Potentially there might be a demand adjustment at some point, as audiences lose the benefit of the “quality” content they used to consume.

  • http://platform.idiomag.com Andrew

    Very interesting points all round… I think Wendy is on to something by highlighting that there is a shift in expectation from online news. Current usage trends would point to network recommendation, immediacy, and brevity being the main factors in popular content. Of course, everyone (including me) will cry out that we need longer form, well-researched pieces – but are audiences reading them? I’d love to hear from a publisher that is seeing an upswing in consumption of that type of content!

    It’s all very well saying that a magazine editor has an in-depth understanding of his/her audience – but what if a) it can be replicated by a collection of readers who now blog, or b) the audience doesn’t value that anymore! And I’m certainly not saying that the latter (or even the former) is a “good” thing in terms of quality content creation.

    Potentially there might be a demand adjustment at some point, as audiences lose the benefit of the “quality” content they used to consume.