Media veteran will oversee marketing across company's suite of brands
5 Ways to Save Magazines
Put ads on covers, take a lesson from Netflix, more.
Related
Keywords
Slideshow
Through the years, Playboy has managed to attract some top flight talent to appear in the all-together. So in honor of the Bunny's half-century milestone, TheWrap takes a look at some of the top celebrities who have taken a turn as Playboy cover girls -- from sultry sirens such as Pamela Anderson to funny girls like Marge Simpson, with a mercifully short stop-off at the truly frightening. (Sorry LaToya!)
We’ve all seen the numbers. Still, they’re hard to fathom.
Advertising pages for consumer magazines plummeted 28 percent during the first half of the year, representing roughly $2.5 billion in lost revenue. Of the 243 magazines tracked by the Publishers Information Bureau, just 12 managed to increase their ad pages.
The beating continued at the newsstand. Single copy sales slid 12.1 percent during the first half, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Just 93 of the 700-plus magazines tracked by ABC managed to increase their newsstand draw. (Among the top 25 titles in terms of paid circulation, only Time did.)
The magazine industry has been brutalized by the recession, and by that evil foe of all things Old Media: the web. According to a recent survey conducted by ABC, one in four magazine publishers don’t believe that their publication will be available in a print form five years from now.
And when a publishing powerhouse like Condé Nast says it needs to fold four magazines and lay off 180 employees -- like it did earlier this week -- it’s dumping fuel on an already raging fire.
But the magazine industry isn’t quite buried just yet. Here are some things that can, at worst, prolong the inevitable. And maybe, just maybe, with a little luck, save an industry staring down its maker.
1. CREATE A NETFLIX FOR MAGAZINES
Four years ago, an executive at a magazine conference let slip that he was working on a subscription-based project similar in concept to Netflix, where consumers could select specific issues of different magazines they wanted without committing to a full year of them.
The idea is genius: One month, you might want Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue or baseball preview; the next, maybe it's Vogue. Or Wired. Or Guns & Ammo.
That project turned out to be Maghound, which Time Inc. launched last September. The membership pricing is tiered -- three titles for $4.95 a month, five for $7.95, seven for $9.95, and $1 per title for eight titles or more.
The problem is, has your Mom heard about “Maghound”? Didn’t think so. While Netflix has built its business around deep selection and nimble word-of-mouth and web-based marketing, the executives behind Maghound are lagging sorely behind.
Maybe it’s the goofy name. Or maybe it's the fact that Maghound launched with just 240 available titles, most from Time Inc., just a few -- like Men’s Health, Elle, Martha Stewart Living and Maxim – from outside the mega-publisher’s stable.
It’s time to mag up and figure this out. Or perhaps just partner with Netflix itself.
Hey, it worked for the videogame industry.
2. OPEN MAGAZINE COVERS TO ADS
Newspapers have done it. Television has done it. Why not magazines?
Some publishers have already gotten their toes wet, however slyly, and I’m not just talking about Esquire’s e-ink cover -- in whose technology Hearst held a stake.
Comments
Former Magazine Devotee Says
At one point in the past I subscribed to Vogue, Bazaar, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, New Yorker, W, House & Garden, House Beautiful, Southern Accents, Architectural Digest, World of Interiors, Washingtonian (I'm a transplant from DC to NY), and too many more to list.
Along with figuring out that most beauty/fashion magazines are basically catalogs of more stuff I don't need, along with telling me I'm fat, ugly, stink, and am desperate for a man, the Internet has replaced magazines as the medium by which I get information on trends, fashion, and what's "hip". The shelter mags became less relevant as there is no longer any real style to admire-- it's an "anything goes" pastiche of previous successful chic. Hence, more shelter mags shutter each month, while the home-fashion bloggers now wield the influence in this area. At least they each have an "angle."
Most city-relative pubs are hopelessly out of date by the time they're printed, OR I can get the bulk of what's in the print edition, from their online editions in an instant. (NYMag IS a terrific online incarnation!)
However, I find a superb example of a magazine worth purchasing in World of Interiors. Not only have they opted NOT to be online in any form with the exception of a subscription form, they continually manage to put together a work of art each and every month-- something worth purchasing-- AND collecting. Arch Digest could take a lesson.
I predict that the only magazines that will survive in print form are those that can create value in themselves beyond mere information. Who knows? Fine impressions on exquisite paper with ultra high-res photographic printing might make a comeback. Vogue should consider going quarterly, putting the table chat, party pics, and ephemeral-celebrity features online-only. They could double the price and people would buy it because it would become the fashion "last-word" each season. Remember Elegance? It was an uber-fashion magazine (in the 60's?/70's) that actually had fabric swatches glued to the pages. Each issue was a keeper.
So that's the philosophy. If you still want to kill trees, either create a "keeper" or forget it.
Former Magazine Devotee Says
At one point in the past I subscribed to Vogue, Bazaar, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, New Yorker, W, House & Garden, House Beautiful, Southern Accents, Architectural Digest, World of Interiors, Washingtonian (I'm a transplant from DC to NY), and too many more to list.
Along with figuring out that most beauty/fashion magazines are basically catalogs of more stuff I don't need, along with telling me I'm fat, ugly, stink, and am desperate for a man, the Internet has replaced magazines as the medium by which I get information on trends, fashion, and what's "hip". The shelter mags became less relevant as there is no longer any real style to admire-- it's an "anything goes" pastiche of previous successful chic. Hence, more shelter mags shutter each month, while the home-fashion bloggers now wield the influence in this area. At least they each have an "angle."
Most city-relative pubs are hopelessly out of date by the time they're printed, OR I can get the bulk of what's in the print edition, from their online editions in an instant. (NYMag IS a terrific online incarnation!)
However, I find a superb example of a magazine worth purchasing in World of Interiors. Not only have they opted NOT to be online in any form with the exception of a subscription form, they continually manage to put together a work of art each and every month-- something worth purchasing-- AND collecting. Arch Digest could take a lesson.
I predict that the only magazines that will survive in print form are those that can create value in themselves beyond mere information. Who knows? Fine impressions on exquisite paper with ultra high-res photographic printing might make a comeback. Vogue should consider going quarterly, putting the table chat, party pics, and ephemeral-celebrity features online-only. They could double the price and people would buy it because it would become the fashion "last-word" each season. Remember Elegance? It was an uber-fashion magazine (in the 60's?/70's) that actually had fabric swatches glued to the pages. Each issue was a keeper.
So that's the philosophy. If you still want to kill trees, either create a "keeper" or forget it.
Kahuna1 Says
Now that the ICANN is free of U.S. interference, create a top level domain ".mag" for the magazines to use. Set up each story on a separate web page with an option to view the pages in a flow like flipping through the magazine. Click the ones you like to view the info (and ads). Simple delivery of a complex item.
famebook Says
Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.
In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)
Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging fro content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Sharon and The Wrap team for my wisdom above...kinda pointless!
Johnee99 Says
Putting McKinsey on a retainer is only going to get McKinsey rich. Bottom line is that magazines are going away...newspapers are the canary in the coal mine. The only way to save these media companies is for them to accept getting smaller before they get bigger again and to transition their value to smaller and smaller screens to keep pace with the average consumer of media. Stop seeing everything through the print lens and get agnostic in delivery channel, then educate brands and advertisers on this value. Hint, hint, they already get it, which is why they too are transitioning more of their ad dollars to online. If the print brands won't service them effectively, then the HuffPo's and Googles of the world will.
The Descriptionist Says
Newspapers are short-form news. Magazines are long-form news and partly entertainment. As an avid reader of magazines, the answer isn't as simple as more ads and more web. Cost cutting is a good place to start, and event-based issues like the Fall Fashion is another.
The problem is that magazine people are just that - magazine people. They make a good magazine and they think people will buy. They don't care about consumer habits or distribution issues, they are content people. Now, the pipes are changing and they don't have the right people to find solutions.
My suggestion? Treat magazine like consumer packaged goods. Get someone who knows how to sell ice cream in the winter (Ben & Jerry's) or flavored water. Learn the art of retail via true merchandisers not magazine editors or publishers.
Here are some ideas if anyone's reading:
1. Change your packaging
- can't subscribers print their own?
- what about varying the formats? USB in plastic collectible?
2. Find different distribution channels
- why doesn't Hot Topic have their own version of Rolling Stone?
3. Give advertisers value.
- Vogue charges more money for it's Fall Fashion so that you can be lost in 400 pages of other advertisers.
- the depts that come up with their strategic partnerships or the added-value initiatives are just not sharp.
- and no, selling covers isn't a step in the right direction.
Good Luck.
Ben Cunningham Says
You do wonder where the print media is heading after the development of the Internet. Many newspapers are losing readership all over the country which is forcing them to re-evaluate their future. How many magazines can survive? Maybe they should market on the Internet just like the newspapers are starting to do. The world keeps changing. casino online
Magfan Says
It's pretty obvious from the last three points you make in this article that you don't have a serious idea either. But the sentiment is correct. Magazines need to find their place in the online world and marketplace. Print will always be there, but how do you convince a younger generation accustomed to getting news and photos for free that there is value in going to the newsstand. How do you convince them you matter online? Each magazine has its own challenge. One thing not mentioned in the goodbyes to Gourmet is that Ruth Reichel simply didn't put out a good magazine. It may have appealed to a small group of literary foodies, but she failed to connect with mainstream readers at a time when food - the whole food experience - from an new interest in local foods to TV cooking shows exploded in popularity. She simply made a bad magazine. It will be fun to see how this shakes out.