BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Why Do Good Magazines Die?

BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Why Do Good Magazines Die?

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
I agree with your premise, below. My first job was with House & Garden and it was a heady time, with editors who had tremendous style and clout with the reader and the retailer and a publisher and ad sales staff who were nearly mythic in their ability to convince the advertising community that the House & Garden brand was essential to their media schedule.

The key here was the fact that the "brand" was presented as unique, and advertisers understood clearly what the brand meant, in terms of the emotional connection and importance it had to readers.

I wonder if that was the way the magazine was still being presented to the ad community - and if the reader also understood why they needed to have the magazine as well?

Many magazines believe that just because they have a product that comes out every week, or every month, etc., and appears on the newsstand, or in their customer's mailbox, that they have a "brand". That couldn't be further from the truth!

I think that unless and until the magazine moguls understand that each magazine needs to do what their own best advertising customers wouldn't step foot out the door without doing - and that is to make it clear what is unique, compelling and competitive about the magazine - and what the emotional connection the magazine uniquely has with the reader - we're going to see a lot more titles, old and new, go under. A magazine should be a brand, not a commodity.
(Submitted by a President and CMO)

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
Yes, this is truly astounding. You have to wonder, "What were they thinking?!" They couldn't even sell the old lady onward to someone who saw an opportunity? Must be nice to be that fat, dumb and happy, but if I were a Condé Nast shareholder I'd be screaming bloody murder.
(Submitted by a Publisher and COO)

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
Wow Bobby, taking on the Conde behemoth - you go boy!!
(Submitted by a Senior Publishing Consultant)

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
Bo, the main reason of H&G closing is how Conde Nast manage circulation and advertising. All the income is based on advertising pages and just a little amount on circulation. If H&G had a "good paid circulation", like People or US Weekly, probably it would not had been closed.
(Submitted by a Senior Magazine Rep)

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
Your comments about the unfortunate impact of the influence of youth are spot on. In support of that statement I offer an article in the latest issue of Scientific American discussing something called myelin. Myelin is the white matter underpinning the gray matter of the brain. To the best of my rather basic understanding, the gray matter is a network of firing neurons performing data processing tasks and is, more or less, present at birth. White matter is the infrastructure that, among other things, determines the quality of one's decision making. Myelin, and the advanced decision making abilities it imparts, is not even all there until one reaches his mid-20's. 'Nuff said.
(Submitted by a Printer)

Re: BoSacks: Why Do Good Magazines Die?
Bo, I agree with you and your analysis, and I loved the title of your piece. I think the industry is just damn confused. The big guys, which I am not, don't have any more of an idea where this industry is headed then I do as twenty nine year veteran publisher of four smallish titles. Actually I think I am in a better position to survive the content wars than the so called giants of the industry. I know my readership and they know me. Can any Conde publisher say that? I doubt it. My readers pay me a very fair price for my work and my titles on the newsstand or as a subscription. Can they say that? I doubt it.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

The want ads department

c"It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious."
Alfred North Whitehead (British Mathematician and Philosopher, 1861-1947)

The want ads department

By: Edited by Valerie Block

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/FREE/70623029&SearchID=73285232776603



Publisher David Carey was pressing the flesh last week during the final stretch of his race to fill Conde Nast Portfolio's second issue with ads. He met with clients to share enthusiastic e-mails from some of the business title's high-profile readers, media buyers say.



His efforts to retain all his advertisers haven't been entirely successful. The debut issue, which arrived in April amid tremendous hype and mixed reviews, had 185 ad pages. The September issue will have roughly 120, a Portfolio spokeswoman says.



One executive at a major media-buying shop explains why some clients whose ads appeared in the first issue will not return: "They expected a more hard-hitting, substantive business environment, and what they got was a fashion-centric, business-as-background type of Conde Nast title," he says.



Portfolio executives say the publication is meeting its original goals, which were to run an average of 125 pages in September, October and November. "This was the plan," says the spokeswoman. "We have solid fall issues and at least 30 new advertisers."



Mr. Carey will be booking September ads until July 10.





Union Rejects Time Inc. Offer

Union Representing Time Inc. Magazine Workers Rejects Contract Offer From Company

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070622/time_inc_union.html?printer=1



NEW YORK (AP) -- Members of a union representing editorial employees at Time, Fortune, People and other magazines at Time Inc. have unanimously rejected a contract offer from the company.

The Newspaper Guild of New York said Friday its members had voted 133-0 to turn down the company's offer, which the union said would have "drastically cut" severance pay, provided no guaranteed wage increases and allowed the company in several cases to change health coverage without consulting the guild.



The union has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that the magazine publisher, part of the media conglomerate Time Warner Inc., has been bargaining in bad faith by presenting proposals that "demonstrate a lack of intent to ever reach an agreement."



Negotiations have been going on since last December, and the most recent contract expired on March 22, the guild said. In January, Time Inc. announced nearly 300 job cuts, including 100 union-covered jobs.



In addition to editorial employees at Time and Fortune, the guild also represents workers at Time Inc.'s Fortune Small Business, Money, People and Sports Illustrated magazines.



Time Inc. spokeswoman Dawn Bridges said in a statement that the company "gave the union very fair and reasonable proposals, including generous severance, a merit pay system and overtime after 40 hours work. Our hope and expectation is to reach a new contract."




http://www.minonline.com/min/
The Weeklies'/Biweeklies' 2007-Versus-2006 Ad Pages At Mid-Year: "Gossip" Remains Advertising Stronger Than "Real" News And Business.

We do not know whether the ever-growing legion of Us Weekly/InTouch/Life & Style Weekly and Star readers fully believe the never-ending pregnancies/anorexia/bulimia/obesity/marriages/separations/divorces afflicting America's celebrities, but advertisers continue to believe in the product. All of the aforementioned are up significantly in ad pages through the first half, with Bauer Publishing's IT (+30.20%) and L&SW (+51.83%) posting the biggest differentials overall. (Success did not stop L&SW editor-in-chief Mark Pasetsky from dismissing seven staffers last week.) That suggests quite an ad "welcome wagon" for Bauer's planned September launch of Cocktail Weekly, which advertising president Ian Scott said (min, May 7, 2007) will be less gossipy and more in the beauty/fashion/relationships mold of Cosmopolitan and Glamour. But, given the numbers, it is not only a woman who has the right to change her mind.

People (-1.91% through June) is not on this ad gravy-train perhaps because it is not gossipy enough, but it certainly earns more than its rivals combined. Conditions are tough at Newsweek (-7.21%) and the restructured Time (-5.57%), and continue to be so at BusinessWeek (-12.58%), Forbes (-3.52%), and Fortune (-17.43%). The much-improved economy and strong stock market (in spite of end-of-first-quarter concerns) is not yet reflected here.

We cannot guarantee that TV Guide's +29.74% first-half has removed it from intensive care, but the differential is the most pleasing since its major overhaul in October 2005. New-to-min's-boxscores The Nation did better "left" (+23.03%) than National Review did "right" (-7.77%).

Growth Demands From Publishers, Rise of Online Rivals May Cause Shakeout

Growth Demands From Publishers, Rise of Online Rivals May Cause Shakeout

By Nat Ives

http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116801
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Most of the attention to Condé Nast's Portfolio so far has wondered about its effect on the old-guard business magazines: Forbes, Fortune and BusinessWeek. In reality, Portfolio or no Portfolio, the market trends we can already observe suggest pressure for a biz-mag shakeout is building -- pressure that the scrappier players will feel far more acutely than the old behemoths.

Little guys like Smart Money, Money and Fast Company would likely be first the to go in a category shakeout.


Consider, for example, the challenges for Business 2.0, a smart magazine with a great editor in Josh Quittner. Its ad pages sank 7.7% in 2005 and slid 5.1% in 2006, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. This year ad sales are off to a terrible start, with pages off 31.6% through the May issue, per the Media Industry Newsletter. It may be profitable -- although people close to the title have expressed skepticism on that point -- but at its parent, Time Inc., even profitability isn't worth what it once was. Now the company wants all its resources invested in the highest-growth areas.

Hurtling
And it's not just the new Portfolio that established business titles must contend with, by the way, but also legions of young digital outlets drilling into all kinds of business subjects. One of them, DealBreaker, recently savaged Portfolio in a review and proved its own worth by breaking news on aspects of Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones. Business books are actually facing increased editorial competition from all sides (don't forget the ad dollars Fox News plans to vacuum up with its planned business channel), while advertisers are gunning hard for complex multimedia deals that encourage concentration of dollars with fewer outlets. Does that mean we're due for a category shakeout?

"It's happened before," said Brad Adgate, senior VP-director of research, Horizon Media, citing last year's annihilation of teen magazines. "But Fortune, Forbes and BusinessWeek have been around since the '20s and '30s, so I'd be surprised if one of them went anywhere."

The numbers show a bumpy ride for everyone -- just bumpier for some than others.

Three of the titles clock in with annual pages above 2,000: Forbes, Fortune and BusinessWeek. Their most recent ad-page totals for 2007 show declines of 2.1%, 13.3% and 11.8%, respectively, according to Media Industry Newsletter.

In the smaller tier, only Mansueto Ventures' Inc. and Fast Company showed gains, of 10.5% and 9.4%, respectively. In addition to the declines at Fortune and Business 2.0, Time Inc. has seen ad pages at Money fall 25.6% so far and Fortune Small Business lose 7.2%. The Hearst and Dow Jones joint venture SmartMoney slid 7.92%.

Consolidation toll
Andrew Swinand, president-chief client officer, Starcom Worldwide, said consolidation among technology and financial-services firms is reducing the number of advertisers in the business category. Those that remain can't do business with everybody.

"Unless you are a 360 player, you aren't competitive," Mr. Swinand said. "Unless you have the package of events and digital to complement the print publication, we're not really interested. Smaller publications who don't have as mature and developed 360 properties are going to continue to lose in the marketplace."

Forbes is one of the winners, relatively speaking, in that game. "There are more one- and two-book buys going on than I've ever seen," said Jim Berrien, president-publisher, Forbes. "Now everybody wants these bespoke complex, measurable, real, live marketing programs. And you know what? Thank God. Otherwise it's dull. The pressure comes on the companies that either don't have the resources in terms of channels or assets that are germane, or that can't execute for one reason or another."

Robert Safian, editor in chief and managing director at Fast Company, figures his kind of title is better positioned for changing times.
Photo Credit: Spencer Heyfron


To be fair, there are plenty of challenges facing the establishment business books as well, not least the rapid changes among consumers and the business world at large. Many people would disagree with Mr. Berrien's opinion that the unwavering Forbes "flagpole point of view" is an asset amid all the upheaval.

Robert Safian, who left Fortune in January to become editor in chief and managing director at Fast Company, figures his kind of title is better positioned for changing times. "The patterns are set up by big magazines because of where they've been," he said. "The questions about where business is heading, and where the motivations and emphasis will be in the future, creates challenges for magazines that are aligned with the way things are now. That's the opportunity that Fast Company has -- to define itself a little differently than the other business magazines."

Exhibit A
"That's not to say that the way that traditional business magazines have defined themselves is not still credible and important," he added. "It is, it's real; I'm still going to read them looking for those things. But there is a new sensibility that's emerging that they try to address but is harder for them to own."

We have an Exhibit A to suggest: the cover story about 20-somethings in the new issue of Fortune, where Andy Serwer was named managing editor last October with a bit of a change-agent mission.

Cover line: "'Manage' Us? Puh-leeze ... " Twenty-somethings have already noted, to start, that "puh-leeze" isn't quite their vernacular. Media blog Gawker also tore up the article's list of identifiers for the 20-somethings in question, such as iPods, digital cameras and designer coffee. "Look around you," Gawker's take-down said. "Is someone wearing big headphones? They may be a Gen Yer! Proceed with caution: They're likely to take your picture and put it on their blog!"

The one sure thing is that demand for business information, from stock prices to lengthy exposés, will always mean a robust category -- however it is composed. "A lot of people go online for financial information," said Mr. Adgate. "There are thousands of initiatives that the magazines are doing now online. There's a sense that perhaps they've created a brand by having a magazine, but the future may be online."