BoSacks Speaks Out: I had no idea that DeWitt Wallace who conceived of Reader's Digest was such a visionary. Please read the article below and send me back your thoughts. I think that the 87 year old wisdom of DeWitt Wallace displayed below, could help save our industry today. I have been preaching for over a decade, that the path to our success will be in developing addictive content. I have my own particular definition about that, but I am in love with Mr. Wallace's excellent interpretation. I truly wish I could have had the opportunity to have a cup of coffee and a conversation with him about the industry.
Sometimes Samir Husni and I are at very opposite ends of magazine punditry. Today we are in total agreement. I must mark that down in my calendar.
"The literature at the top says Reader's Digest but it is not. If you look at the literature, it says USA Direct Inc. What they do is say you have won and of course everyone knows Reader's Digest so they assume it's legitimate."
Jeannie Hoskins
Saving Reader's Digest . . .
By Samir Husni http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/
I know what people say about free advice, but while recovering from sinus surgery the news about the two million cut in circulation at Reader's Digest and the plan to sell the back cover of the magazine to advertisers sent me back to the early years of Reader's Digest and to the prototype issue and first issue of the magazine.
I do not know whether it is the hospital connection that brought to mind the link with Reader's Digest beginnings (DeWitt Wallace conceived RD on his hospital bed in France) or the recent news, but in any case I went to my magazine collection and pulled out the prototype issue and first issue of RD from Jan. 1920 and Feb. 1922 and guess what? I found the cure for all the ills of Reader's Digest today. DeWitt Wallace referred to RD in his prototype issue as the "Pocket University" which "will enable you to keep yourself educated in the truest sense; it will yield immeasurable satisfaction in giving you a sense of being well-informed and well-read."
Wallace's plan for the magazine was to be "of 100% Educational Interest- no fiction, no advertisements, no articles on purely transient topics and no articles of limited or specialized appeal." His wife Lila defined the nature of such articles in the introduction to the first issue. She described the articles in RD as such: "Each article of enduring value and interest - today, next month, or a year hence; such articles as one talks about and wishes to remember." Elsewhere in that first issue the editors wrote, "No articles of purely momentary interest - every article a worth while one, worthy of a permanent place in the storehouse of the mind."
It is amazing as I flip through the pages of Reader's Digest today I can't but ask, Is there anything left from the magazine concept that the Wallace's created? Is any of the articles "worthy of a permanent place" in the reader's mind? To save Reader's Digest one only needs to go back and read those two issues from the 20s . . . the concept is still applicable today as it was then . . . The problem is not with the circulation or the advertising. Reader's Digest problem is in its content. Be true to that mission statement of the past and bring back that "Pocket University" and you may see the cure of most of the ills of the magazine. John Travolta and the cures of back pain will not do it. Almost all the articles in the July issue of the magazine are of "purely momentary interest." Once more it is the problem with the content and not the medium. I hope someone is reading, because I know the Wallace's are turning in their graves as they see what happened to their beloved magazine. It is not too late to save "The one magazine that is preeminently worth keeping- and binding- for future reference and enjoyment." So says the words of the founders in their prototype issue. They are worth repeating.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
RD to Sell Back Cover, Cuts Circ 20%
RD to Sell Back Cover, Cuts Circ 20%
BY Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003605600
Reader's Digest has revealed that in addition to whacking its rate base by 2 million to 8 million starting in January, it would for the first time regularly sell ads on its back cover. The back cover has carried various forms of art over the years, including the work of Norman Rockwell-style Cincinnati illustrator C.F. Paine that's appeared in every issue since 2003.
"We have done extensive research in-house," said Eva Dillon, president and group publisher, Reader's Digest, one of a number of outside executives that new RDA CEO and longtime pal Mary Berner brought in following a private equity-led buyout earlier this year. "Readers don't seem to care one way or another. We thought readers would have a strong negative reaction. Once we saw that they didn't, we said, 'Hey, what are we waiting for?'"
The sale of the back cover will coincide with a planned redesign under editor Jackie Leo, and Payne's work will continue to run in the magazine, Dillon said. "He's an incredibly important artist, and his art will be part of the redesign," she said.
The decision will likely be well-received by marketers, as advertisers have long clamored to run ads on the coveted back cover position. "A lot of our longstanding advertisers have been asking every year," Dillon said. "There will definitely be a premium on it because so many people want it."
The sweeping changes at the Readers Digest Association flagship are among others planned by Berner. Having shaken up the executive ranks, she also plans to step up sales across RDA titles and pursue more advertising opportunities around food magazine Taste of Home and its brand extensions (the company doesn't plan to break with practice of not accepting display print ads in the title).
At the future rate base of 8 million, Reader's Digest's guaranteed circ will stand at nearly half the 15-million level it was in 1999, when it began a series of rate base cuts. Indeed, cost of paper, postage, clutter at the newsstand and advertiser demand for more loyal readers have led other giants like Time magazine, TV Guide and Playboy to right-size their rate bases in recent years. A move once pounced on by media buyers as a sign of weakness, a rate base cut is more often applauded as a necessary move that results in higher-quality circulation.
Dillon said the rate base cut at Reader's Digest would save costs while responding to advertiser demand for more loyal circulation. Reader's Digest will whittle the rate base by shifting spending on direct mail to online, which it hopes to build on what is today a small subscription source and attract younger readers in the process.
"This is a very broad magazine for 35-plus," Dillon said. "We know that we need to shift some of our focus to younger readers."
The magazine, the second-biggest by circulation after AARP the Magazine, per the Audit Bureau of Circulations, has tried to court younger readers over the years, but boomers remain its sweet spot. Median adult reader age stands at 51.7, per the Spring MRI.
BY Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003605600
Reader's Digest has revealed that in addition to whacking its rate base by 2 million to 8 million starting in January, it would for the first time regularly sell ads on its back cover. The back cover has carried various forms of art over the years, including the work of Norman Rockwell-style Cincinnati illustrator C.F. Paine that's appeared in every issue since 2003.
"We have done extensive research in-house," said Eva Dillon, president and group publisher, Reader's Digest, one of a number of outside executives that new RDA CEO and longtime pal Mary Berner brought in following a private equity-led buyout earlier this year. "Readers don't seem to care one way or another. We thought readers would have a strong negative reaction. Once we saw that they didn't, we said, 'Hey, what are we waiting for?'"
The sale of the back cover will coincide with a planned redesign under editor Jackie Leo, and Payne's work will continue to run in the magazine, Dillon said. "He's an incredibly important artist, and his art will be part of the redesign," she said.
The decision will likely be well-received by marketers, as advertisers have long clamored to run ads on the coveted back cover position. "A lot of our longstanding advertisers have been asking every year," Dillon said. "There will definitely be a premium on it because so many people want it."
The sweeping changes at the Readers Digest Association flagship are among others planned by Berner. Having shaken up the executive ranks, she also plans to step up sales across RDA titles and pursue more advertising opportunities around food magazine Taste of Home and its brand extensions (the company doesn't plan to break with practice of not accepting display print ads in the title).
At the future rate base of 8 million, Reader's Digest's guaranteed circ will stand at nearly half the 15-million level it was in 1999, when it began a series of rate base cuts. Indeed, cost of paper, postage, clutter at the newsstand and advertiser demand for more loyal readers have led other giants like Time magazine, TV Guide and Playboy to right-size their rate bases in recent years. A move once pounced on by media buyers as a sign of weakness, a rate base cut is more often applauded as a necessary move that results in higher-quality circulation.
Dillon said the rate base cut at Reader's Digest would save costs while responding to advertiser demand for more loyal circulation. Reader's Digest will whittle the rate base by shifting spending on direct mail to online, which it hopes to build on what is today a small subscription source and attract younger readers in the process.
"This is a very broad magazine for 35-plus," Dillon said. "We know that we need to shift some of our focus to younger readers."
The magazine, the second-biggest by circulation after AARP the Magazine, per the Audit Bureau of Circulations, has tried to court younger readers over the years, but boomers remain its sweet spot. Median adult reader age stands at 51.7, per the Spring MRI.
BBC news magazine launch pencilled in for autumn
BBC news magazine launch pencilled in for autumn
By Colin Crummy
BBC Magazines' much anticipated current affairs weekly Newsbrief is to launch this autumn with a subscription drive targeting international and women readers.
The title has been worked out in close co-operation with BBC News and has been through extensive consumer research, which revealed the current affairs title found favour with 30-something mothers, a demographic much sought-after by magazine publishers.
BBC Magazines has previously expressed its keenness to move into the global arena and Newsbrief is expected to have a subscription drive in the USA.
Though Dennis Publishing recently sold a number of its US titles, it retained its weekly news digest The Week, which is likely to reach a new circulation high of 500,000 in its next audit.
Felix Dennis this week reiterated his commitment to the title and to Dennis' ambitions in America. In a letter to Press Gazette the company chairman said that Dennis's US arm will be launching or acquiring further media in the future.
According to insiders, the new BBC magazine will be more than just a digest of other BBC content and will take a more analytical look at weekly current affairs. It is also like to benefit from the ability to draw on high profile BBC News names like John Simpson for commentary.
Originally dubbed Project Phoenix, the working title of Newsbrief is intended describe the way the mag briefs the reader, in a digestible fashion.
It is understood Newsbrief will be under the same editorial control as BBC News and there has been an extensive period of consultation with the broadcasting division to ensure it maintains and complies with its editorial standards.
Head of press for BBC Magazines Philip Fleming refused to comment on any of the details of Newsbrief but said that the project had not yet been fully approved. The company is planning a number of launches scheduled for autumn 2007. Its Bristol division is to launch Countryfile in September, linked to the TV programme.
In the Night Garden, a children's title based on the popular Cbeebies television programme is also to launch.
By Colin Crummy
BBC Magazines' much anticipated current affairs weekly Newsbrief is to launch this autumn with a subscription drive targeting international and women readers.
The title has been worked out in close co-operation with BBC News and has been through extensive consumer research, which revealed the current affairs title found favour with 30-something mothers, a demographic much sought-after by magazine publishers.
BBC Magazines has previously expressed its keenness to move into the global arena and Newsbrief is expected to have a subscription drive in the USA.
Though Dennis Publishing recently sold a number of its US titles, it retained its weekly news digest The Week, which is likely to reach a new circulation high of 500,000 in its next audit.
Felix Dennis this week reiterated his commitment to the title and to Dennis' ambitions in America. In a letter to Press Gazette the company chairman said that Dennis's US arm will be launching or acquiring further media in the future.
According to insiders, the new BBC magazine will be more than just a digest of other BBC content and will take a more analytical look at weekly current affairs. It is also like to benefit from the ability to draw on high profile BBC News names like John Simpson for commentary.
Originally dubbed Project Phoenix, the working title of Newsbrief is intended describe the way the mag briefs the reader, in a digestible fashion.
It is understood Newsbrief will be under the same editorial control as BBC News and there has been an extensive period of consultation with the broadcasting division to ensure it maintains and complies with its editorial standards.
Head of press for BBC Magazines Philip Fleming refused to comment on any of the details of Newsbrief but said that the project had not yet been fully approved. The company is planning a number of launches scheduled for autumn 2007. Its Bristol division is to launch Countryfile in September, linked to the TV programme.
In the Night Garden, a children's title based on the popular Cbeebies television programme is also to launch.
Time Warner May Split Off Cable, AOL Units, Pali Says
Time Warner May Split Off Cable, AOL Units, Pali Says
By Gillian Wee
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=ah_oqYHfXRfo
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Time Warner Inc., the world's biggest media company, may split off or sell more units and buy back additional shares, pushing the stock price to $25, according to a report today by Pali Capital Inc.
Richard Greenfield, a New York-based analyst at Pali, raised his rating on the shares to ``buy'' from ``neutral,'' saying Time Warner may sell its cable unit, and spin off or sell the AOL Internet division.
Time Warner's board should act over the next year to reshape the company, including disposing of its publishing unit, Time Inc., Greenfield wrote. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn last year unsuccessfully pressured the company to break itself up. He managed to push Time Warner to repurchase more stock and pledge to cut costs by $1 billion over two years.
``The synergy between Time Warner's divisions is limited at best; sometimes even creating the risk to destroying value at one division to help another,'' Greenfield wrote. ``Its complexity has, without doubt, become a liability in the public market.''
Keith Cocozza, a Time Warner spokesman, didn't have an immediate comment.
Shares of New York-based Time Warner rose 12 cents to $20.98 at 12:35 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They have fallen 4.2 percent this year before today.
Share Buyback
Time Warner may discuss the future of the units at a board meeting later this month, Greenfield wrote. The company may buy back at least $14 billion of stock in the next 18 months, he said.
Since defeating Icahn's campaign in February last year, Parsons has cut jobs and agreed to sell more than $4 billion of assets, including AOL Web access units in Europe. Parsons also gave in to Icahn's demand to boost a share repurchase plan to $20 billion. That plan was completed in May.
What Time Warner decides to do with cable and AOL might also be decided by Jeff Bewkes, who may be planning to simplify the company, Greenfield said. Bewkes was effectively named heir apparent after being promoted to president by Chief Executive Officer Richard Parsons in January. Parsons, whose contract expires in May 2008, said last month he will decide over the next year or two when to step down.
Even though Time Warner Cable is a separate public company, the fact that it's 86 percent-owned by Time Warner prevents it from focusing on businesses that would compete with its parent, such as a major Internet portal strategy or national cable networks, Greenfield said.
AOL is also faltering, as its target audience will continue to shrink and it hasn't offered innovative new products, Greenfield said.
Parsons, in an interview last week, said it will take two more quarters for AOL to turn around, as its user base is going up for the first time in five years. Time Warner also wants to be part of the consolidation in the cable industry, and such acquisitions depend on the families that control Cablevision Systems Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Gillian Wee in New York at gwee3@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: July 16, 2007 12:36 EDT
By Gillian Wee
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=ah_oqYHfXRfo
July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Time Warner Inc., the world's biggest media company, may split off or sell more units and buy back additional shares, pushing the stock price to $25, according to a report today by Pali Capital Inc.
Richard Greenfield, a New York-based analyst at Pali, raised his rating on the shares to ``buy'' from ``neutral,'' saying Time Warner may sell its cable unit, and spin off or sell the AOL Internet division.
Time Warner's board should act over the next year to reshape the company, including disposing of its publishing unit, Time Inc., Greenfield wrote. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn last year unsuccessfully pressured the company to break itself up. He managed to push Time Warner to repurchase more stock and pledge to cut costs by $1 billion over two years.
``The synergy between Time Warner's divisions is limited at best; sometimes even creating the risk to destroying value at one division to help another,'' Greenfield wrote. ``Its complexity has, without doubt, become a liability in the public market.''
Keith Cocozza, a Time Warner spokesman, didn't have an immediate comment.
Shares of New York-based Time Warner rose 12 cents to $20.98 at 12:35 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They have fallen 4.2 percent this year before today.
Share Buyback
Time Warner may discuss the future of the units at a board meeting later this month, Greenfield wrote. The company may buy back at least $14 billion of stock in the next 18 months, he said.
Since defeating Icahn's campaign in February last year, Parsons has cut jobs and agreed to sell more than $4 billion of assets, including AOL Web access units in Europe. Parsons also gave in to Icahn's demand to boost a share repurchase plan to $20 billion. That plan was completed in May.
What Time Warner decides to do with cable and AOL might also be decided by Jeff Bewkes, who may be planning to simplify the company, Greenfield said. Bewkes was effectively named heir apparent after being promoted to president by Chief Executive Officer Richard Parsons in January. Parsons, whose contract expires in May 2008, said last month he will decide over the next year or two when to step down.
Even though Time Warner Cable is a separate public company, the fact that it's 86 percent-owned by Time Warner prevents it from focusing on businesses that would compete with its parent, such as a major Internet portal strategy or national cable networks, Greenfield said.
AOL is also faltering, as its target audience will continue to shrink and it hasn't offered innovative new products, Greenfield said.
Parsons, in an interview last week, said it will take two more quarters for AOL to turn around, as its user base is going up for the first time in five years. Time Warner also wants to be part of the consolidation in the cable industry, and such acquisitions depend on the families that control Cablevision Systems Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Gillian Wee in New York at gwee3@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: July 16, 2007 12:36 EDT
Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice
Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice
By JUSTON JONES
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/media/16habits.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
With the United States military fighting a protracted war in Iraq and a wide-open presidential campaign already making headlines daily, Americans of all ages are interested in current affairs and are consuming news like never before, right?
Not so, especially not teenagers and young adults, according to a report released last week by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
In fact, most teenagers and adults 30 and younger are not following the news closely at all, the report, titled "Young People and News," concluded. It is based on a national sample of 1,800 Americans that included teenagers, young adults aged 18 to 30 and older adults.
Thomas Patterson, a professor of government and the press at Harvard who conducted the survey, said that young people today do not make an appointment with news every day the way older adults do.
"We found that most young adults don't have an ingrained news habit," he said. "Most children today, when watching television, are not watching the same TV set that their parents are watching. So even if their parents are watching the news every day, the children are likely to be in another room watching something else and aren't acquiring the news habit."
The survey went a step further to see what the respondents meant when they said that they did pay attention to the news. Those results, especially among the younger groups, were equally discouraging for the news industry, said Alex S. Jones, the director of the Shorenstein Center.
"What we found is that what people mean when they say they are engaged in the news has much more of a glancing, superficial basis than anything we would have hoped," he said. "Young people seemed to think that just listening to the radio in the background was listening to the news."
The results were especially grim for newspapers. Only 16 percent of the young adults surveyed aged 18 to 30 said that they read a newspaper every day and 9 percent of teenagers said that they did. That compared with 35 percent of adults over 30. Furthermore, despite the popular belief that young people are flocking to the Internet, the survey found that teenagers and young adults were twice as likely to get daily news from television than from the Web.
Despite this, some in the industry say the situation is not hopeless.
Jane Hirt, the editor of RedEye, a free daily newspaper that is published by The Chicago Tribune specifically for young, urban professionals, said that her publication had succeeded and had even expanded its audience by adopting some of the lessons learned from television and the Internet and by experimenting with ways to tell stories.
"We may have a short face-off with two sides of an issue," she said. "We believe it is a way of delivering content in a form like younger people are used to getting on the Internet."
She said that she reminds her editors that their younger readers are used to customizing their lives. "They pick and choose what they want on their iPods, what to TiVo and watch whenever they want, and so forth," she said. "Therefore, because we are targeting that niche audience, we make story selections to really connect with them, and we can do that because we are thinking about them all day."
Still, her publication and newspapers in general may be facing an uphill battle.
"My sense is that newspapers in their traditional form are not going to be able to recapture this audience," said Professor Patterson. "What's happened over time is that we have become more of a viewing nation than a reading nation, and the Internet is a little of both. My sense is that, like it or not, the future of news is going to be in the electronic media, but we don't really know what that form is going to look like."
By JUSTON JONES
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/media/16habits.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
With the United States military fighting a protracted war in Iraq and a wide-open presidential campaign already making headlines daily, Americans of all ages are interested in current affairs and are consuming news like never before, right?
Not so, especially not teenagers and young adults, according to a report released last week by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
In fact, most teenagers and adults 30 and younger are not following the news closely at all, the report, titled "Young People and News," concluded. It is based on a national sample of 1,800 Americans that included teenagers, young adults aged 18 to 30 and older adults.
Thomas Patterson, a professor of government and the press at Harvard who conducted the survey, said that young people today do not make an appointment with news every day the way older adults do.
"We found that most young adults don't have an ingrained news habit," he said. "Most children today, when watching television, are not watching the same TV set that their parents are watching. So even if their parents are watching the news every day, the children are likely to be in another room watching something else and aren't acquiring the news habit."
The survey went a step further to see what the respondents meant when they said that they did pay attention to the news. Those results, especially among the younger groups, were equally discouraging for the news industry, said Alex S. Jones, the director of the Shorenstein Center.
"What we found is that what people mean when they say they are engaged in the news has much more of a glancing, superficial basis than anything we would have hoped," he said. "Young people seemed to think that just listening to the radio in the background was listening to the news."
The results were especially grim for newspapers. Only 16 percent of the young adults surveyed aged 18 to 30 said that they read a newspaper every day and 9 percent of teenagers said that they did. That compared with 35 percent of adults over 30. Furthermore, despite the popular belief that young people are flocking to the Internet, the survey found that teenagers and young adults were twice as likely to get daily news from television than from the Web.
Despite this, some in the industry say the situation is not hopeless.
Jane Hirt, the editor of RedEye, a free daily newspaper that is published by The Chicago Tribune specifically for young, urban professionals, said that her publication had succeeded and had even expanded its audience by adopting some of the lessons learned from television and the Internet and by experimenting with ways to tell stories.
"We may have a short face-off with two sides of an issue," she said. "We believe it is a way of delivering content in a form like younger people are used to getting on the Internet."
She said that she reminds her editors that their younger readers are used to customizing their lives. "They pick and choose what they want on their iPods, what to TiVo and watch whenever they want, and so forth," she said. "Therefore, because we are targeting that niche audience, we make story selections to really connect with them, and we can do that because we are thinking about them all day."
Still, her publication and newspapers in general may be facing an uphill battle.
"My sense is that newspapers in their traditional form are not going to be able to recapture this audience," said Professor Patterson. "What's happened over time is that we have become more of a viewing nation than a reading nation, and the Internet is a little of both. My sense is that, like it or not, the future of news is going to be in the electronic media, but we don't really know what that form is going to look like."
Regional Magazine Survey:
Regional Magazine Survey:
http://www.foliomag.com/viewmedia.asp?prmMID=7833
Methodology
The survey sample of 737 was selected by Red 7 Media from all Folio: subscribers who classified their company's primary focus as city/regional publishing on the Folio: subscription form. Data was collected via mail survey by Readex Research from February 15 to March 29, 2007. The survey was closed for tabulation with 246 usable responses-a 33% response rate. To ensure representation of the audience of interest, results have been filtered to include only those who indicated on the survey their organizations are involved in city/regional publishing. The margin of error for percentages based on these 235 respondents is ±5.3% at the 95% confidence level.
City and regional magazines remain one of the last havens of print publishing. While both b-to-b and mainstream consumer publishers either grapple with or capitalize on the encroachment of online into their markets, city and regional publishers for the most part remain healthy, and are getting wealthier.
Folio:'s second annual City and Regional Publishing Survey finds a group that continues to flourish-from large urban markets to suburbs and small towns-even as competition grows rapidly and even though they are largely focused in print. However, there is increasingly a concern that they may be getting too comfortable in traditional print roles and are not yet cashing in on the benefits of ancillary products and online.
Sizing the Market
The city and regional market has enjoyed explosive growth over the last five years. The majority of city and regional publishers remain single-title publishers, with 45 percent of respondents saying they publish one magazine, identical to last year's survey. However 23 percent of respondents say this year they publish two titles, compared to 19 percent in 2006, while 12 percent in this year's survey publish between four and six titles, up from 10 percent in 2006 [Table 1, opposite page].
Circulation varies widely but remains small compared to mass market and even many enthusiast publications. Among publishers whose smallest title has a mean circulation of 36,600, 34 percent reported circulation between 20,000 and 39,999. Twenty-one percent said their smallest titles fall into the 10,000 to 19,999 range. Of the group whose mean circulation for their largest title is 64,900, 28 percent say their largest-circulation title falls into the 20,000 to 39,999 range, which may be a direct correlation to the number of publishers that only produce one title. Twenty-one percent of respondents say their smallest title is in the 10,000 to 19,999 range, while 16 percent say their largest title has between 40,000 and 60,000 readers. Twelve percent say their smallest title has less than 10,000 readers, and six percent say their largest title has fewer than 10,000 readers. Six percent of respondents say their smallest title has circulation of 100,000, while 14 percent say their largest title is 100,000 or more [Tables 2A and 2B].
Paid circulation (including newsstand sales) still accounts for the majority of city and regional circulation, while "controlled, not requested" exceeds the number of "controlled requested" copies. Twenty-two percent of respondents described "controlled not requested" circ as the major source of circulation, compared to 14 percent who described "controlled requested" as their circulation model [Table 3]. However, "controlled requested" has gained ground since last year's survey, when only 9 percent of respondents said it accounted for significant distribution of their magazines.
Micro-targeting within a jurisdiction is key for many publications, whether trying to reach an audience on the newsstand, via subscription or through free-distribution models. Emmis Communications shifted the focus of Los Angeles from the West Side of that city after acquiring the magazine from Disney six years ago to reflect "affluencers" moving to other areas in search of better schools. South Florida Adventures is trying to carve a niche in the bloated Florida regional magazine market by concentrating on free distribution of its outdoor sports magazine through 170 gyms, dive shops, kayak outfitters and similar locations.
Revenue Mix
Twenty-five percent of respondents say that their company will generate between $1 million and $2.9 million in 2007 [Table 5A, page 58]. Ten percent said organizational revenue will be in the $3 million to $4.9 million range, while another 10 percent anticipate between $250,000 and $499,000 in 2007 revenue. Among companies with mean revenues of $4.49 million, 8 percent say they expect between $5 million and $9.9 million; another 8 percent anticipate between $10 million and $24.9 million; and 5 percent expect $25 million or more. Overall, the mean revenue for all respondents is $4.5 million.
When it comes to publication revenue, 12 percent of publishers expect revenue from their largest publication to be under $100,000 in 2007, while 10 percent anticipate $100,000 to $249,000; another 10 percent expect between $250,000 and $499,000 in revenue this year; another 10 percent between $750,000 an $999,000, and 10 percent between $1 million and $2.9 million [Table 5B, page 58].
Revenue continues to grow rapidly. The majority of respondents [48 percent] said the top line has increased over the last three years, while 14 percent say it has stayed about the same [Table 4, page 58]. Just two percent of respondents say revenue has dropped over the last three years, while 23 percent say their publication didn't even exist three years ago, indicating the large numbers of startups that have filled the city and regional market recently.
While much of the industry is seeing a tipping point in the direction of online revenue (in some cases, events, data and online are even equaling or exceeding print revenue), the city and regional market remains a solid bastion for print, despite aggressive online efforts from city publishers such as DLG Media, publisher of Philadelphia Style and DC Style. More than 86 percent of respondents said that print was their largest revenue stream, down slightly from 87.2 percent in 2004 and 87.1 percent in 2005 [Table 12B].
Paid subscriptions accounted for 8.9 percent of revenue in 2006, down from 9.7 percent in 2004. E-media inched up slightly to 1.9 percent in 2006, up from 1.5 percent in 2005.
Although a large majority of both large and small companies [82 percent of publishers with less than $5 million and 58 percent of those with more than $5 million in annual revenue] haven't launched a spin-off, those that have are reaping the benefits. Sixteen percent said their spin-off generates between $250,000 and $499,000 per year, while another 16 percent say it generates between $100,000 and $249,000.
When Emmis bought Los Angeles six years ago, the magazine generated about $11 million per year. Today it generates about $20 million, according to publisher Alan Klein. Part of what's driving the growth is custom publishing, which generates about 8 percent of the magazine's total ad revenue. Projects include a wedding magazine, a magazine for the city of Beverly Hills, and even partnerships with other publishers that could be considered competitive. Los Angeles recently wrapped a joint summer movie preview with The Hollywood Reporter. "We've developed some custom projects and we're going to continue to expand on that because the margins are good and we're able to leverage relationships we have with our core brand in putting these together," says Klein.
On the other hand, Berkshire Living, a 25,000-circ title, may not be in crowded market, but it still has two spin-offs including Berkshires Business Quarterly (which launches in October) and annual Berkshire Living Home & Garden. "The margins are very high on these types of spin-offs and you're expanding your group of advertisers and getting more from your current advertisers," says publisher Michael Zivyak.
While 26 percent of respondents say they've had no competitors launch in the last five years, 28 percent say they've seen three-to-five new competitors come into their market. [Table 8]
City and regional magazines remain entrepreneurial efforts for the most part. Most respondents say they launched with less than $25,000, while 18 percent launched with between $50,000 and $99,999. Six percent launched with $1 million or more [Table 7].
South Florida Adventures launched with under $100,000 in 2005 and broke even with its June/July 2006 issue. "For our first anniversary issue we made maybe a few hundred in profit," says editor and publisher David Raterman. "We didn't even have an office, I worked out of my home. As far as national advertisers, it's tough. Media buyers want a high circ and they want you to be audited, even if you're a perfect target for them. The buyers do not fully understand where we fit into the market."
http://www.foliomag.com/viewmedia.asp?prmMID=7833
Methodology
The survey sample of 737 was selected by Red 7 Media from all Folio: subscribers who classified their company's primary focus as city/regional publishing on the Folio: subscription form. Data was collected via mail survey by Readex Research from February 15 to March 29, 2007. The survey was closed for tabulation with 246 usable responses-a 33% response rate. To ensure representation of the audience of interest, results have been filtered to include only those who indicated on the survey their organizations are involved in city/regional publishing. The margin of error for percentages based on these 235 respondents is ±5.3% at the 95% confidence level.
City and regional magazines remain one of the last havens of print publishing. While both b-to-b and mainstream consumer publishers either grapple with or capitalize on the encroachment of online into their markets, city and regional publishers for the most part remain healthy, and are getting wealthier.
Folio:'s second annual City and Regional Publishing Survey finds a group that continues to flourish-from large urban markets to suburbs and small towns-even as competition grows rapidly and even though they are largely focused in print. However, there is increasingly a concern that they may be getting too comfortable in traditional print roles and are not yet cashing in on the benefits of ancillary products and online.
Sizing the Market
The city and regional market has enjoyed explosive growth over the last five years. The majority of city and regional publishers remain single-title publishers, with 45 percent of respondents saying they publish one magazine, identical to last year's survey. However 23 percent of respondents say this year they publish two titles, compared to 19 percent in 2006, while 12 percent in this year's survey publish between four and six titles, up from 10 percent in 2006 [Table 1, opposite page].
Circulation varies widely but remains small compared to mass market and even many enthusiast publications. Among publishers whose smallest title has a mean circulation of 36,600, 34 percent reported circulation between 20,000 and 39,999. Twenty-one percent said their smallest titles fall into the 10,000 to 19,999 range. Of the group whose mean circulation for their largest title is 64,900, 28 percent say their largest-circulation title falls into the 20,000 to 39,999 range, which may be a direct correlation to the number of publishers that only produce one title. Twenty-one percent of respondents say their smallest title is in the 10,000 to 19,999 range, while 16 percent say their largest title has between 40,000 and 60,000 readers. Twelve percent say their smallest title has less than 10,000 readers, and six percent say their largest title has fewer than 10,000 readers. Six percent of respondents say their smallest title has circulation of 100,000, while 14 percent say their largest title is 100,000 or more [Tables 2A and 2B].
Paid circulation (including newsstand sales) still accounts for the majority of city and regional circulation, while "controlled, not requested" exceeds the number of "controlled requested" copies. Twenty-two percent of respondents described "controlled not requested" circ as the major source of circulation, compared to 14 percent who described "controlled requested" as their circulation model [Table 3]. However, "controlled requested" has gained ground since last year's survey, when only 9 percent of respondents said it accounted for significant distribution of their magazines.
Micro-targeting within a jurisdiction is key for many publications, whether trying to reach an audience on the newsstand, via subscription or through free-distribution models. Emmis Communications shifted the focus of Los Angeles from the West Side of that city after acquiring the magazine from Disney six years ago to reflect "affluencers" moving to other areas in search of better schools. South Florida Adventures is trying to carve a niche in the bloated Florida regional magazine market by concentrating on free distribution of its outdoor sports magazine through 170 gyms, dive shops, kayak outfitters and similar locations.
Revenue Mix
Twenty-five percent of respondents say that their company will generate between $1 million and $2.9 million in 2007 [Table 5A, page 58]. Ten percent said organizational revenue will be in the $3 million to $4.9 million range, while another 10 percent anticipate between $250,000 and $499,000 in 2007 revenue. Among companies with mean revenues of $4.49 million, 8 percent say they expect between $5 million and $9.9 million; another 8 percent anticipate between $10 million and $24.9 million; and 5 percent expect $25 million or more. Overall, the mean revenue for all respondents is $4.5 million.
When it comes to publication revenue, 12 percent of publishers expect revenue from their largest publication to be under $100,000 in 2007, while 10 percent anticipate $100,000 to $249,000; another 10 percent expect between $250,000 and $499,000 in revenue this year; another 10 percent between $750,000 an $999,000, and 10 percent between $1 million and $2.9 million [Table 5B, page 58].
Revenue continues to grow rapidly. The majority of respondents [48 percent] said the top line has increased over the last three years, while 14 percent say it has stayed about the same [Table 4, page 58]. Just two percent of respondents say revenue has dropped over the last three years, while 23 percent say their publication didn't even exist three years ago, indicating the large numbers of startups that have filled the city and regional market recently.
While much of the industry is seeing a tipping point in the direction of online revenue (in some cases, events, data and online are even equaling or exceeding print revenue), the city and regional market remains a solid bastion for print, despite aggressive online efforts from city publishers such as DLG Media, publisher of Philadelphia Style and DC Style. More than 86 percent of respondents said that print was their largest revenue stream, down slightly from 87.2 percent in 2004 and 87.1 percent in 2005 [Table 12B].
Paid subscriptions accounted for 8.9 percent of revenue in 2006, down from 9.7 percent in 2004. E-media inched up slightly to 1.9 percent in 2006, up from 1.5 percent in 2005.
Although a large majority of both large and small companies [82 percent of publishers with less than $5 million and 58 percent of those with more than $5 million in annual revenue] haven't launched a spin-off, those that have are reaping the benefits. Sixteen percent said their spin-off generates between $250,000 and $499,000 per year, while another 16 percent say it generates between $100,000 and $249,000.
When Emmis bought Los Angeles six years ago, the magazine generated about $11 million per year. Today it generates about $20 million, according to publisher Alan Klein. Part of what's driving the growth is custom publishing, which generates about 8 percent of the magazine's total ad revenue. Projects include a wedding magazine, a magazine for the city of Beverly Hills, and even partnerships with other publishers that could be considered competitive. Los Angeles recently wrapped a joint summer movie preview with The Hollywood Reporter. "We've developed some custom projects and we're going to continue to expand on that because the margins are good and we're able to leverage relationships we have with our core brand in putting these together," says Klein.
On the other hand, Berkshire Living, a 25,000-circ title, may not be in crowded market, but it still has two spin-offs including Berkshires Business Quarterly (which launches in October) and annual Berkshire Living Home & Garden. "The margins are very high on these types of spin-offs and you're expanding your group of advertisers and getting more from your current advertisers," says publisher Michael Zivyak.
While 26 percent of respondents say they've had no competitors launch in the last five years, 28 percent say they've seen three-to-five new competitors come into their market. [Table 8]
City and regional magazines remain entrepreneurial efforts for the most part. Most respondents say they launched with less than $25,000, while 18 percent launched with between $50,000 and $99,999. Six percent launched with $1 million or more [Table 7].
South Florida Adventures launched with under $100,000 in 2005 and broke even with its June/July 2006 issue. "For our first anniversary issue we made maybe a few hundred in profit," says editor and publisher David Raterman. "We didn't even have an office, I worked out of my home. As far as national advertisers, it's tough. Media buyers want a high circ and they want you to be audited, even if you're a perfect target for them. The buyers do not fully understand where we fit into the market."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
When Do You Stop The Presses?
When Do You Stop The Presses?
Why the San Francisco Chronicle is a candidate to exit print
BY Jon Fine
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_30/b4043029.htm
Play with me on this one: Which major American newspaper should be the first to throw up its hands and stop publishing a print product?
It's a question worth asking. This could be the worst year for newspapers since the Great Depression. The double-digit revenue declines long forecast by doomsters have arrived. While nearly all the major papers still post profits, albeit smaller than before, a few prominent ones are losing boatloads. At Hearst Newspapers' San Francisco Chronicle, according to a deposition given by James M. Asher, the company's chief legal and business development officer, losses of $330 million piled up between mid-2000 and September, 2006, better-or should I say worse?-than $1 million a week. During negotiations with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's unions, the owning Block family disclosed that the paper lost $20 million in 2006. Late last year, The Boston Globe was headed for unprofitability as well, according to The Wall Street Journal.
And 2007 does not look materially kinder than 2006 for any of these papers. One senior executive describes the climate like this: "If you told me 24 months ago that revenues would be declining as much as they are today, I'd say you were smoking dope." Print newspapers require maintaining a costly status quo-paper, presses, trucks, and mail rooms-that, if only through rising gas prices, will only get more expensive.
WHEN, EXACTLY, do you junk something that no longer works? And which major paper should go first-not today, but within the next 18 or 24 months?
San Francisco Chronicle, I'm looking at you.
Killing printrequires acknowledging not just that the old mode is dead but also that the future means less revenue and shrunken staffs. This is why it makes sense soonest at a money-losing newspaper already grappling with those realities, and one in a major city that generates enough local ad dollars to support a sizable online business.
On paper, San Francisco is perfect: a Web-centric town, a cash-drain daily, and private ownership. Which does not mean this will happen. San Francisco is the ancestral home of the Hearst empire, the birthplace of William Randolph Hearst and the town where he ran his first paper. It could be hard for Hearst to consider the move on those grounds alone. (In Asher's deposition, though, he said Hearst briefly considered selling the Chronicle in 2005.)
There are attractions to the way things are today. The Chronicle claims 265,000 weekday subscribers and sells a year's worth of home delivery for $138. Even if you assume that discount offers bring the average subscription price to $90, that's still $23.9 million a year-not an ungodly sum, but one that nervous executives are probably loath to kiss off forever. (Distribution costs, of course, mean those dollars don't appear for free.) But what's more relevant, at least today, is that advertisers still pay more for ads in the newspaper than on the Web site. "Even if you double or triple it, the revenue [online] just isn't there yet," argues one top executive.
This is why the papers dream about getting consumers to pay for digital or online content. But water has had a hard time finding a way up that hill.
Executives might be better off wondering at what point the Globe's Boston.com or the Chronicle's sfgate.com-with unassailable market positions, excellent editorial, and massive traffic-will be worth more as a solo digital play than attached to a print newspaper. Or whether going all-in on digital might make their market's ad dollars flow there more quickly, especially if they're the only major paper in town. Or that a paper could buy tons of unsold local ad inventory from the likes of MySpace and Yahoo! , and then resell it profitably through its veteran sales force.
All of this requires big thinking-and spending enough to create networks of local sites and a giant local portal. And it will take a brave man or woman to pull the plug on the presses.
It almost takes a William Randolph Hearst.
For Jon Fine's blog on media and advertising, go to www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia
Why the San Francisco Chronicle is a candidate to exit print
BY Jon Fine
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_30/b4043029.htm
Play with me on this one: Which major American newspaper should be the first to throw up its hands and stop publishing a print product?
It's a question worth asking. This could be the worst year for newspapers since the Great Depression. The double-digit revenue declines long forecast by doomsters have arrived. While nearly all the major papers still post profits, albeit smaller than before, a few prominent ones are losing boatloads. At Hearst Newspapers' San Francisco Chronicle, according to a deposition given by James M. Asher, the company's chief legal and business development officer, losses of $330 million piled up between mid-2000 and September, 2006, better-or should I say worse?-than $1 million a week. During negotiations with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's unions, the owning Block family disclosed that the paper lost $20 million in 2006. Late last year, The Boston Globe was headed for unprofitability as well, according to The Wall Street Journal.
And 2007 does not look materially kinder than 2006 for any of these papers. One senior executive describes the climate like this: "If you told me 24 months ago that revenues would be declining as much as they are today, I'd say you were smoking dope." Print newspapers require maintaining a costly status quo-paper, presses, trucks, and mail rooms-that, if only through rising gas prices, will only get more expensive.
WHEN, EXACTLY, do you junk something that no longer works? And which major paper should go first-not today, but within the next 18 or 24 months?
San Francisco Chronicle, I'm looking at you.
Killing printrequires acknowledging not just that the old mode is dead but also that the future means less revenue and shrunken staffs. This is why it makes sense soonest at a money-losing newspaper already grappling with those realities, and one in a major city that generates enough local ad dollars to support a sizable online business.
On paper, San Francisco is perfect: a Web-centric town, a cash-drain daily, and private ownership. Which does not mean this will happen. San Francisco is the ancestral home of the Hearst empire, the birthplace of William Randolph Hearst and the town where he ran his first paper. It could be hard for Hearst to consider the move on those grounds alone. (In Asher's deposition, though, he said Hearst briefly considered selling the Chronicle in 2005.)
There are attractions to the way things are today. The Chronicle claims 265,000 weekday subscribers and sells a year's worth of home delivery for $138. Even if you assume that discount offers bring the average subscription price to $90, that's still $23.9 million a year-not an ungodly sum, but one that nervous executives are probably loath to kiss off forever. (Distribution costs, of course, mean those dollars don't appear for free.) But what's more relevant, at least today, is that advertisers still pay more for ads in the newspaper than on the Web site. "Even if you double or triple it, the revenue [online] just isn't there yet," argues one top executive.
This is why the papers dream about getting consumers to pay for digital or online content. But water has had a hard time finding a way up that hill.
Executives might be better off wondering at what point the Globe's Boston.com or the Chronicle's sfgate.com-with unassailable market positions, excellent editorial, and massive traffic-will be worth more as a solo digital play than attached to a print newspaper. Or whether going all-in on digital might make their market's ad dollars flow there more quickly, especially if they're the only major paper in town. Or that a paper could buy tons of unsold local ad inventory from the likes of MySpace and Yahoo! , and then resell it profitably through its veteran sales force.
All of this requires big thinking-and spending enough to create networks of local sites and a giant local portal. And it will take a brave man or woman to pull the plug on the presses.
It almost takes a William Randolph Hearst.
For Jon Fine's blog on media and advertising, go to www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia
Business magazines underperform vs. industry in second quarter
Business magazines underperform vs. industry in second quarter
http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?p=3081
Advertising dollars in 15 business-related magazines fell 5.5 percent in the second quarter of the year, while ad pages dropped 10.2 percent, according to data from the Publishers Information Bureau analyzed by Talking Biz News.
In comparison, the overall magazine industry saw a 5.2 percent increase in ad dollars and just a 1.9 percent decline in ad pages.
The numbers for the business magazines exclude any data from newly launched Conde Nast Portfolio. However, if Portfolio's reported 185 ad pages were included in the ad numbers, ad pages for business magazines in the second quarter would still be down 6.9 percent. The numbers also exclude any data from the new American business magazine.
Overall, the 15 business magazines reported $468.1 million in ad revenue for three months, compared to $495.1 million in ad revenue for the second quarter of 2006. The ad pages were 5,082.59 (excluding Portfolio), compared to 5660.57 in the same three months in 2006.
The best performing business magazines in the quarter were The Economist and Barron's. Economist reported a 31.3 percent increase in ad dollars to $28.4 million and a 13 percent jump in ad pages to 634.23, while Barron's had a 27.5 percent increase in ad dollars to $15.3 million and a 19 percent increase in ad pages to 394.72.
Also showing a nice quarter was Fast Company, up 14.1 percent in ad dollars to $8.7 million and up 8 percent in ad pages to 121.21, and Wired, up 13.6 percent in ad dollars to $20.1 million and up 3.4 percent in ad pages to 279.85.
At the other end, Business 2.0 reported a 38 percent drop in ad dollars to $9.2 million adn a 41.5 percent decline in ad pages to 134.46, while PC Magazine posted a 24.3 percent drop in ad dollars to $22.3 million and a 28 percent drop in ad pages to 275.83.
Among the "big three," Forbes was up 11.8 percent in ad dollars, while Fortune was off 13.4 percent and BusinessWeek dropped 15.2 percent. with $104.4 million, Forbes garnered a 22.3 percent share of all business magazine ad dollars in the second quarter compared to 18.9 percent in the second quarter of 2006 on $93.3 million in ad sales.
Time Inc.'s four financial glossies - Business 2.0, Fortune, Fortune Small Biz and Money - all saw declines in the quarter in ad dollars and ad pages. The four magazines had a 29.3 percent share of all business magazine ad dollars in the second quarter on $137.4 million, down from 33.1 percent in the second quarter of 2006 on $163.8 million in ad sales. Maybe that's why the company just named a new head of its business magazine operation.
All of the data for magazines can be found on this Excel spreadsheet.
http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?p=3081
Advertising dollars in 15 business-related magazines fell 5.5 percent in the second quarter of the year, while ad pages dropped 10.2 percent, according to data from the Publishers Information Bureau analyzed by Talking Biz News.
In comparison, the overall magazine industry saw a 5.2 percent increase in ad dollars and just a 1.9 percent decline in ad pages.
The numbers for the business magazines exclude any data from newly launched Conde Nast Portfolio. However, if Portfolio's reported 185 ad pages were included in the ad numbers, ad pages for business magazines in the second quarter would still be down 6.9 percent. The numbers also exclude any data from the new American business magazine.
Overall, the 15 business magazines reported $468.1 million in ad revenue for three months, compared to $495.1 million in ad revenue for the second quarter of 2006. The ad pages were 5,082.59 (excluding Portfolio), compared to 5660.57 in the same three months in 2006.
The best performing business magazines in the quarter were The Economist and Barron's. Economist reported a 31.3 percent increase in ad dollars to $28.4 million and a 13 percent jump in ad pages to 634.23, while Barron's had a 27.5 percent increase in ad dollars to $15.3 million and a 19 percent increase in ad pages to 394.72.
Also showing a nice quarter was Fast Company, up 14.1 percent in ad dollars to $8.7 million and up 8 percent in ad pages to 121.21, and Wired, up 13.6 percent in ad dollars to $20.1 million and up 3.4 percent in ad pages to 279.85.
At the other end, Business 2.0 reported a 38 percent drop in ad dollars to $9.2 million adn a 41.5 percent decline in ad pages to 134.46, while PC Magazine posted a 24.3 percent drop in ad dollars to $22.3 million and a 28 percent drop in ad pages to 275.83.
Among the "big three," Forbes was up 11.8 percent in ad dollars, while Fortune was off 13.4 percent and BusinessWeek dropped 15.2 percent. with $104.4 million, Forbes garnered a 22.3 percent share of all business magazine ad dollars in the second quarter compared to 18.9 percent in the second quarter of 2006 on $93.3 million in ad sales.
Time Inc.'s four financial glossies - Business 2.0, Fortune, Fortune Small Biz and Money - all saw declines in the quarter in ad dollars and ad pages. The four magazines had a 29.3 percent share of all business magazine ad dollars in the second quarter on $137.4 million, down from 33.1 percent in the second quarter of 2006 on $163.8 million in ad sales. Maybe that's why the company just named a new head of its business magazine operation.
All of the data for magazines can be found on this Excel spreadsheet.
Hachette Signs On With ABC Rapid Report
Hachette Signs On With ABC Rapid Report
by Erik Sass
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=63951&Nid=32281&p=204904
HACHETTE FILIPACCHI MEDIA IS COMMITTING all its publications to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' Rapid Reporting system, beginning with their January 2008 issues. This move expands Hachette's existing commitment to ABC Rapid Reporting; the company already submitted some of its biggest titles, including Car and Driver, Road & Track and Woman's Day, to the service.
Introduced in July 2006, ABC Rapid Report allows publishers to deliver important circulation data to advertisers within weeks of an individual magazine issue going on sale. Rapid report data includes paid and verified subscriptions, newsstand sales, rate base and analyzed non-paid circulation. As part of the report, ABC calculates whether magazines are meeting their rate base goals, including the percentage of over- or under-fulfillment.
President and CEO Jack Kliger explained the decision: "We believe that greater transparency and accountability are in the best interests of Hachette and the industry. Advertisers deserve timely assurance that the circulation delivered by the titles in which they advertise is in keeping with their expectations."
However, Kliger added that Hachette would like to see a move to ad sales based on new audience metrics, akin to the data available to TV and Internet advertisers. "While we hope that eventually magazines will also be bought and sold based on timely audience information," he said, "providing prompt information on circulation delivery brings us an important step closer to this goal."
New audience-based metrics have recently been introduced by Mediamark Research Inc., including its new Issue-Specific data. Last year, publisher Time Inc. announced that media buyers would have the option of negotiating deals for Time magazine inventory based on MRI Issue-Specific audience data.
by Erik Sass
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=63951&Nid=32281&p=204904
HACHETTE FILIPACCHI MEDIA IS COMMITTING all its publications to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' Rapid Reporting system, beginning with their January 2008 issues. This move expands Hachette's existing commitment to ABC Rapid Reporting; the company already submitted some of its biggest titles, including Car and Driver, Road & Track and Woman's Day, to the service.
Introduced in July 2006, ABC Rapid Report allows publishers to deliver important circulation data to advertisers within weeks of an individual magazine issue going on sale. Rapid report data includes paid and verified subscriptions, newsstand sales, rate base and analyzed non-paid circulation. As part of the report, ABC calculates whether magazines are meeting their rate base goals, including the percentage of over- or under-fulfillment.
President and CEO Jack Kliger explained the decision: "We believe that greater transparency and accountability are in the best interests of Hachette and the industry. Advertisers deserve timely assurance that the circulation delivered by the titles in which they advertise is in keeping with their expectations."
However, Kliger added that Hachette would like to see a move to ad sales based on new audience metrics, akin to the data available to TV and Internet advertisers. "While we hope that eventually magazines will also be bought and sold based on timely audience information," he said, "providing prompt information on circulation delivery brings us an important step closer to this goal."
New audience-based metrics have recently been introduced by Mediamark Research Inc., including its new Issue-Specific data. Last year, publisher Time Inc. announced that media buyers would have the option of negotiating deals for Time magazine inventory based on MRI Issue-Specific audience data.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Roots of Editorial 'Independence'
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
Benjamin Franklin
The Roots of Editorial 'Independence'
By JIM PREVOR
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118403552816161785-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0MDAxMzA1Wj.html
Page A21
The controversy over the possible sale of Dow Jones and particularly The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. may be predictable, and the efforts of the Bancroft family to maintain the editorial integrity of the publication may be laudable. Yet the complicated negotiations to create a board that would secure editorial independence are a mistake. They misinterpret the nature of editorial independence and miss the point that the owner of a publication is the person most likely to defend its editorial integrity.
Editorial independence is always a function of one thing and one thing only: an editor's willingness to be fired. In his autobiographical book "Making It," Norman Podhoretz, the long-time editor of Commentary magazine, reflected on how he could both have independence as an editor, yet work for a magazine owned by the American Jewish Committee, which had decided interests and opinions:
"The editorial independence which the American Jewish Committee had always granted to Commentary consisted simply in this: no person except the editor or anyone he might voluntarily wish to consult could read articles in advance of publication or could dictate what should or should not appear in the magazine . . . The editor of Commentary, like any chief executive of any operation owned by others, only had as much freedom -- which is to say power -- as he was willing to risk exercising. If he did something he thought right and of which the AJC then disapproved, it was not enough merely to defend himself and hold firmly to his ground; he also had to make certain that he would not be deterred in the future by the fear of similar trouble from taking an action which he believed to be in the best interests of the magazine. There was only one way I or anyone else could be faithful to this principle: I had to be ready at any moment to lose my job. The AJC could fire me at its pleasure; that was its protection against me. My protection against it was my willingness to get fired; the minute I lost that willingness, I would lose my freedom and consequently my power to do the best editorial job I was capable of doing."
All of the mechanisms being discussed as possible ways to maintain editorial independence for The Wall Street Journal in a possible post-Bancroft era are designed to evade this fundamental fact: If the editor in chief of a publication is not willing to lose his job, he will always operate in a manner designed to please those who can assure his employment. The only thing that elaborate mechanisms such as independent committees to hire and fire chief editors, etc., will achieve is changing the names of the people to whom the editor will be subservient.
Now, some would say that Rupert Murdoch is some kind of uniquely sinister force in journalism and they would, in fact, be pleased to see a system set up to make sure that anyone other than him makes the important editorial decisions. Yet the incentive system is such that the owner of a publication, in this case presumptively Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., is the one with the greatest incentive to maintain the publication's reputation.
Readers turn to publications for information and insight on various subjects. If a publication is taken over and is losing money, as in the case of News Corp.'s purchase of the New York Post, the owner may look to change editorial approaches because the old one was not a component of a successful business model. But what is the alternative? Allow an independent board to dictate an editorial approach that does not attract readership and leads to bankruptcy?
A large, reputable and profitable company such as Dow Jones offers a very different set of risks and rewards to an owner. Any attempts to utilize the publication for personal benefit by, for example, talking up friends and attacking enemies, would be greeted with resignations by top editors who refuse to prostitute the editorial content in that way.
These resignations would be widely reported, and the word would quickly get out that readers are being fed propaganda, not news and analysis. This loss of reputation leads to a loss of readership and imposes on the owners an enormous loss of value. So ownership, though perhaps tempted to use editorial coverage to its advantage, has powerful incentives not to do so.
On the other hand, independent, self-perpetuating committees have nothing to lose and so they are not restrained in their actions. Typically, this means the publication will become a bore because the members of the independent board will look to appoint people who are admired by their friends and represent the mainstream viewpoint of their social class.
We should expect that a self-perpetuating board would eventually stray very far from what its founders intended. A good example is the board of directors at major foundations. Henry Ford II felt compelled to resign in disgust from the Ford Foundation explaining that: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."
Publications do not edit themselves, so editors must be hired, and they are always answerable to somebody. Even if the editor happens to own the publication, he is only free to act as he chooses to the extent he is indifferent to the effects of those actions on subscriptions, readership and advertising.
Setting up self-perpetuating boards only serves to switch the names of those the editor is answerable to. A board with a lack of interest in the business success of a publication is unlikely to lead to successful and thus greatly important and influential publications.
This whole exercise of trying to ensure editorial independence is somewhat insulting to the editors of Dow Jones publications, now and in the future, as it implies that they are so desperate for employment that they need to be protected against a demanding or opinionated boss.
Great publications always come from editors on fire with ideas and with a vision for their publication. Their independence comes always and simply from their willingness to be fired. No committee can change that truth.
Mr. Prevor is founder and editor in chief of Phoenix Media Network, Inc.
Benjamin Franklin
The Roots of Editorial 'Independence'
By JIM PREVOR
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118403552816161785-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0MDAxMzA1Wj.html
Page A21
The controversy over the possible sale of Dow Jones and particularly The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. may be predictable, and the efforts of the Bancroft family to maintain the editorial integrity of the publication may be laudable. Yet the complicated negotiations to create a board that would secure editorial independence are a mistake. They misinterpret the nature of editorial independence and miss the point that the owner of a publication is the person most likely to defend its editorial integrity.
Editorial independence is always a function of one thing and one thing only: an editor's willingness to be fired. In his autobiographical book "Making It," Norman Podhoretz, the long-time editor of Commentary magazine, reflected on how he could both have independence as an editor, yet work for a magazine owned by the American Jewish Committee, which had decided interests and opinions:
"The editorial independence which the American Jewish Committee had always granted to Commentary consisted simply in this: no person except the editor or anyone he might voluntarily wish to consult could read articles in advance of publication or could dictate what should or should not appear in the magazine . . . The editor of Commentary, like any chief executive of any operation owned by others, only had as much freedom -- which is to say power -- as he was willing to risk exercising. If he did something he thought right and of which the AJC then disapproved, it was not enough merely to defend himself and hold firmly to his ground; he also had to make certain that he would not be deterred in the future by the fear of similar trouble from taking an action which he believed to be in the best interests of the magazine. There was only one way I or anyone else could be faithful to this principle: I had to be ready at any moment to lose my job. The AJC could fire me at its pleasure; that was its protection against me. My protection against it was my willingness to get fired; the minute I lost that willingness, I would lose my freedom and consequently my power to do the best editorial job I was capable of doing."
All of the mechanisms being discussed as possible ways to maintain editorial independence for The Wall Street Journal in a possible post-Bancroft era are designed to evade this fundamental fact: If the editor in chief of a publication is not willing to lose his job, he will always operate in a manner designed to please those who can assure his employment. The only thing that elaborate mechanisms such as independent committees to hire and fire chief editors, etc., will achieve is changing the names of the people to whom the editor will be subservient.
Now, some would say that Rupert Murdoch is some kind of uniquely sinister force in journalism and they would, in fact, be pleased to see a system set up to make sure that anyone other than him makes the important editorial decisions. Yet the incentive system is such that the owner of a publication, in this case presumptively Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., is the one with the greatest incentive to maintain the publication's reputation.
Readers turn to publications for information and insight on various subjects. If a publication is taken over and is losing money, as in the case of News Corp.'s purchase of the New York Post, the owner may look to change editorial approaches because the old one was not a component of a successful business model. But what is the alternative? Allow an independent board to dictate an editorial approach that does not attract readership and leads to bankruptcy?
A large, reputable and profitable company such as Dow Jones offers a very different set of risks and rewards to an owner. Any attempts to utilize the publication for personal benefit by, for example, talking up friends and attacking enemies, would be greeted with resignations by top editors who refuse to prostitute the editorial content in that way.
These resignations would be widely reported, and the word would quickly get out that readers are being fed propaganda, not news and analysis. This loss of reputation leads to a loss of readership and imposes on the owners an enormous loss of value. So ownership, though perhaps tempted to use editorial coverage to its advantage, has powerful incentives not to do so.
On the other hand, independent, self-perpetuating committees have nothing to lose and so they are not restrained in their actions. Typically, this means the publication will become a bore because the members of the independent board will look to appoint people who are admired by their friends and represent the mainstream viewpoint of their social class.
We should expect that a self-perpetuating board would eventually stray very far from what its founders intended. A good example is the board of directors at major foundations. Henry Ford II felt compelled to resign in disgust from the Ford Foundation explaining that: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."
Publications do not edit themselves, so editors must be hired, and they are always answerable to somebody. Even if the editor happens to own the publication, he is only free to act as he chooses to the extent he is indifferent to the effects of those actions on subscriptions, readership and advertising.
Setting up self-perpetuating boards only serves to switch the names of those the editor is answerable to. A board with a lack of interest in the business success of a publication is unlikely to lead to successful and thus greatly important and influential publications.
This whole exercise of trying to ensure editorial independence is somewhat insulting to the editors of Dow Jones publications, now and in the future, as it implies that they are so desperate for employment that they need to be protected against a demanding or opinionated boss.
Great publications always come from editors on fire with ideas and with a vision for their publication. Their independence comes always and simply from their willingness to be fired. No committee can change that truth.
Mr. Prevor is founder and editor in chief of Phoenix Media Network, Inc.
Engagement: Who's in Charge Here?
"Expecting the world to be fair to you because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian."
- Unknown
Engagement: Who's in Charge Here?
by Michael Koziol
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=61099&Nid=32152&p=204904
Time-shifting. User-generated content. Blogging. Community. Whichever rubric you pick, the marketing mix has changed considerably, with consumers emerging as more in control than ever. While marketers and agencies try to figure it out, the consumer gains yet more control, and the balance of power will only continue to shift over the next few years. The reaches of control, however, extend farther than just marketing, with consumers now dominating everything from communities to blogs to wikis.
TiVo and other DVRs, satellite radio and new distribution services like iTunes give consumers direct control over content, often literally, via remote control. Viewers can opt to fast-forward through commercials, subscribe to commercial-free radio, and purchase TV episodes sans ads. These choices, which to some extent pit consumers against advertisers, call into question the value of broadcast advertising. I can't remember the last time that I started watching a television program at the top of the hour instead of waiting until 20 past, so I can watch the show in 40 minutes. I love the show "30 Rock" but only watch it online. And who buys entire albums anymore?
According to Accenture's annual survey (April 2007) of senior media executives, user-generated content is one of the biggest threats that traditional media companies face. And they have every right to be scared.
Blogs are quickly gaining as much credibility as as traditional media outlets, while consumer reviews are increasingly viewed as credible. According to Technorati, there are currently 70 million active blogs. On any given day, I find myself visiting a number of them. There's Engadget, when I want to feel like an early adopter; Luxist, when I hanker for a glimpse into the lap of luxury; AdRants, when I'm curious about what's going on in the agency world; Cool Hunting, when I want to know what tennis shoes are in or out, and Neural.it, when I crave research on new media art applications.
News icons such as the Chicago Tribune and the AP seem to be jumping on the blog bandwagon. And in April, Icelandic publishing company Dagsbrun launched a new publication in which blogs run alongside the usual offline newspaper content, marking one of the first times blog content has left the Web.
While blogs threaten the traditional media establishment, the emergence of user reviews and other customer-feedback forums threaten brands and their relationships with consumers. Any visit I make to a brand site is always accompanied by visits to independent sites to get a balanced opinion. It used to be that Consumer Reports was enough. But now I also visit sites that offer consumer feedback when considering different types of purchases. When planning travel, I always visit TripAdvisor and IgoUgo to read contributors' reviews.
At least one-third of all online ad inventory available today appears to consist of user-generated content - blogs, videos, photo sites, communities and other self-publishing and sharing sites.
The influx of user-generated content is paving the way for a showdown. In the past, advertising subsidized the content created or purchased by media companies. But what happens when publishers only host content and pages created by consumers. Who should get the advertising revenue?
Bloggers with significant traffic, MySpace players with lots of friends who create lots of inventory, YouTube producers/directors winning recognition - they're starting to realize their value, and want more than just AdWords revenue. They're going to want a slice of the ad revenue - something I believe they're entitled to.
As a media and marketing person, all of these issues and dynamics interest me during work hours. Even outside of the office, I'm fascinated to see the power of communities taking strong positions. If 30 million people a week can vote for something as trivial as "American Idol," then they can come together on issues that matter.
Imagine what would happen if and when a few million customers band together to force a company to change its environmental policies, or to take issue with executive compensation. Companies can resist media scrutiny or even government scrutiny, but can they bear the threat of losing customers? Activism is nothing new, but consumers' realization that they have a voice that can be heard far and wide online is an incredibly powerful thing.
Michael Koziol is executive vice president, North America, Nurun/Ant Farm Interactive.
- Unknown
Engagement: Who's in Charge Here?
by Michael Koziol
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=61099&Nid=32152&p=204904
Time-shifting. User-generated content. Blogging. Community. Whichever rubric you pick, the marketing mix has changed considerably, with consumers emerging as more in control than ever. While marketers and agencies try to figure it out, the consumer gains yet more control, and the balance of power will only continue to shift over the next few years. The reaches of control, however, extend farther than just marketing, with consumers now dominating everything from communities to blogs to wikis.
TiVo and other DVRs, satellite radio and new distribution services like iTunes give consumers direct control over content, often literally, via remote control. Viewers can opt to fast-forward through commercials, subscribe to commercial-free radio, and purchase TV episodes sans ads. These choices, which to some extent pit consumers against advertisers, call into question the value of broadcast advertising. I can't remember the last time that I started watching a television program at the top of the hour instead of waiting until 20 past, so I can watch the show in 40 minutes. I love the show "30 Rock" but only watch it online. And who buys entire albums anymore?
According to Accenture's annual survey (April 2007) of senior media executives, user-generated content is one of the biggest threats that traditional media companies face. And they have every right to be scared.
Blogs are quickly gaining as much credibility as as traditional media outlets, while consumer reviews are increasingly viewed as credible. According to Technorati, there are currently 70 million active blogs. On any given day, I find myself visiting a number of them. There's Engadget, when I want to feel like an early adopter; Luxist, when I hanker for a glimpse into the lap of luxury; AdRants, when I'm curious about what's going on in the agency world; Cool Hunting, when I want to know what tennis shoes are in or out, and Neural.it, when I crave research on new media art applications.
News icons such as the Chicago Tribune and the AP seem to be jumping on the blog bandwagon. And in April, Icelandic publishing company Dagsbrun launched a new publication in which blogs run alongside the usual offline newspaper content, marking one of the first times blog content has left the Web.
While blogs threaten the traditional media establishment, the emergence of user reviews and other customer-feedback forums threaten brands and their relationships with consumers. Any visit I make to a brand site is always accompanied by visits to independent sites to get a balanced opinion. It used to be that Consumer Reports was enough. But now I also visit sites that offer consumer feedback when considering different types of purchases. When planning travel, I always visit TripAdvisor and IgoUgo to read contributors' reviews.
At least one-third of all online ad inventory available today appears to consist of user-generated content - blogs, videos, photo sites, communities and other self-publishing and sharing sites.
The influx of user-generated content is paving the way for a showdown. In the past, advertising subsidized the content created or purchased by media companies. But what happens when publishers only host content and pages created by consumers. Who should get the advertising revenue?
Bloggers with significant traffic, MySpace players with lots of friends who create lots of inventory, YouTube producers/directors winning recognition - they're starting to realize their value, and want more than just AdWords revenue. They're going to want a slice of the ad revenue - something I believe they're entitled to.
As a media and marketing person, all of these issues and dynamics interest me during work hours. Even outside of the office, I'm fascinated to see the power of communities taking strong positions. If 30 million people a week can vote for something as trivial as "American Idol," then they can come together on issues that matter.
Imagine what would happen if and when a few million customers band together to force a company to change its environmental policies, or to take issue with executive compensation. Companies can resist media scrutiny or even government scrutiny, but can they bear the threat of losing customers? Activism is nothing new, but consumers' realization that they have a voice that can be heard far and wide online is an incredibly powerful thing.
Michael Koziol is executive vice president, North America, Nurun/Ant Farm Interactive.
No Cheers this Fall: Bauer pulls the plug on Cocktail Weekly
"But better die than live mechanically a life that is a repetition of repetitions."
D.H. Lawrence (British Poet, Novelist and Essayist, 1885-1930)
No Cheers this Fall: Bauer pulls the plug on Cocktail Weekly
By Samir Husni
http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/
In a very short press release Bauer Publishing announced this afternoon that it has canceled the launch of Cocktail Weekly that was planned for Sept. 24, 2007. The complete press release follows:
BAUER PUBLISHING CANCELS LAUNCH OF COCKTAIL WEEKLY
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (July 9, 2007) Bauer Publishing today announced that it has canceled the launch of COCKTAIL WEEKLY. Today's announcement reflects the uncertain conditions in the single copy marketplace.
The magazine that would have been the first of its kind on the newsstands (think Cosmo on a weekly basis) was the second casualty today after Jane magazine's news that its August issue will be the last (See here Radar magazine's breaking news on Jane). Is it the newsstand's climate or is it the publishing climate that is causing all these closures. I have advocated at the recent PBAA meeting the need for publishers to rethink the advertising driven publishing model in this country and go back to the circulation driven model, but I guess it will take time and few more casualties before the industry starts rethinking its practices. The question is do we have the time? Well, only time will show. . .
BoSacks Web Site BoSacks Archive BoSacks E-Paper Reporter
BoSacks Speaks Out BoSacks Pulp & Paper Report Who Is BoSacks?
Subscribe to the Bosacks Newsletter
Adieu: 'Jane' Shutters After 10 Years
by Erik Sass
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=63726&Nid=32152&p=204904
Jane will cease publication after its August issue, Conde Nast announced Monday. The storied women's magazine is the latest title added to the growing heap of consumer magazine corpses axed this year.
Jane joins Time Inc.'s Child and Life magazines, both of which folded in March, and the print edition of Hachette Filipacchi's Premiere, which closed in April. Unlike these publications, which kept an online presence, Jane's Web site is also history.
In a memo to employees, Chuck Townsend, Condé Nast Publications president and CEO, was quoted as saying: "We've come to believe this magazine and Web site will not fulfill our long-term business expectation."
Founded by Jane Pratt in 1997, the title delivered the second-wave feminist editorial mission of Sassy, another Pratt creation that folded in 1994. Both magazines featured writing that was more thoughtful than most women's magazines, flavored with a sense of irreverent fun.
After a strong start, however, the magazine seemed to lose its momentum earlier in this decade. It struggled to differentiate itself in a competitive landscape, where women's fashion and lifestyle magazines were proliferating.
In 2002, publisher Fairchild publications merged with Conde Nast, and in 2005, Pratt resigned as the magazine's publisher, replaced by Carlos LaMadrid as publisher, with Brandon Holley serving as editor in chief. LaMadrid and Holley led a major redesign of the magazine in April 2006, upping the mag's fashion and beauty content. But the makeover did little to buoy its fortunes. Last year, ad pages tumbled 20% compared to 2005.
Ad pages have rebounded somewhat since then, with a 35% increase in the first three months of 2007 compared to 2006. But with 93 total pages in the first quarter--for an annualized rate of 372--that's way down from 750 pages in 2005. Second-quarter figures aren't yet available from the Publisher's Information Bureau.
Roberta Garfinkle, senior vice president of print strategy for Targetcast tcm, memorialized the magazine in the following terms: "It's sad. I always liked it, going back to the beginning. It was a good magazine, one of the few that spoke to this female audience [19-34]." Garfinkle recalled that Jane was also "part of this generation of magazines that really spoke in the voice of the founding editor."
But this proved to be a double-edged sword: "Once the founding editor was gone," says Garfinkle, "the magazine really floundered." Separately, Bauer Publishing has canceled Cocktail, a weekly magazine targeting young women with snarky celebrity gossip and fashion advice. The magazine launch was nixed because of "uncertain conditions in the single-copy marketplace."
D.H. Lawrence (British Poet, Novelist and Essayist, 1885-1930)
No Cheers this Fall: Bauer pulls the plug on Cocktail Weekly
By Samir Husni
http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/
In a very short press release Bauer Publishing announced this afternoon that it has canceled the launch of Cocktail Weekly that was planned for Sept. 24, 2007. The complete press release follows:
BAUER PUBLISHING CANCELS LAUNCH OF COCKTAIL WEEKLY
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (July 9, 2007) Bauer Publishing today announced that it has canceled the launch of COCKTAIL WEEKLY. Today's announcement reflects the uncertain conditions in the single copy marketplace.
The magazine that would have been the first of its kind on the newsstands (think Cosmo on a weekly basis) was the second casualty today after Jane magazine's news that its August issue will be the last (See here Radar magazine's breaking news on Jane). Is it the newsstand's climate or is it the publishing climate that is causing all these closures. I have advocated at the recent PBAA meeting the need for publishers to rethink the advertising driven publishing model in this country and go back to the circulation driven model, but I guess it will take time and few more casualties before the industry starts rethinking its practices. The question is do we have the time? Well, only time will show. . .
BoSacks Web Site BoSacks Archive BoSacks E-Paper Reporter
BoSacks Speaks Out BoSacks Pulp & Paper Report Who Is BoSacks?
Subscribe to the Bosacks Newsletter
Adieu: 'Jane' Shutters After 10 Years
by Erik Sass
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=63726&Nid=32152&p=204904
Jane will cease publication after its August issue, Conde Nast announced Monday. The storied women's magazine is the latest title added to the growing heap of consumer magazine corpses axed this year.
Jane joins Time Inc.'s Child and Life magazines, both of which folded in March, and the print edition of Hachette Filipacchi's Premiere, which closed in April. Unlike these publications, which kept an online presence, Jane's Web site is also history.
In a memo to employees, Chuck Townsend, Condé Nast Publications president and CEO, was quoted as saying: "We've come to believe this magazine and Web site will not fulfill our long-term business expectation."
Founded by Jane Pratt in 1997, the title delivered the second-wave feminist editorial mission of Sassy, another Pratt creation that folded in 1994. Both magazines featured writing that was more thoughtful than most women's magazines, flavored with a sense of irreverent fun.
After a strong start, however, the magazine seemed to lose its momentum earlier in this decade. It struggled to differentiate itself in a competitive landscape, where women's fashion and lifestyle magazines were proliferating.
In 2002, publisher Fairchild publications merged with Conde Nast, and in 2005, Pratt resigned as the magazine's publisher, replaced by Carlos LaMadrid as publisher, with Brandon Holley serving as editor in chief. LaMadrid and Holley led a major redesign of the magazine in April 2006, upping the mag's fashion and beauty content. But the makeover did little to buoy its fortunes. Last year, ad pages tumbled 20% compared to 2005.
Ad pages have rebounded somewhat since then, with a 35% increase in the first three months of 2007 compared to 2006. But with 93 total pages in the first quarter--for an annualized rate of 372--that's way down from 750 pages in 2005. Second-quarter figures aren't yet available from the Publisher's Information Bureau.
Roberta Garfinkle, senior vice president of print strategy for Targetcast tcm, memorialized the magazine in the following terms: "It's sad. I always liked it, going back to the beginning. It was a good magazine, one of the few that spoke to this female audience [19-34]." Garfinkle recalled that Jane was also "part of this generation of magazines that really spoke in the voice of the founding editor."
But this proved to be a double-edged sword: "Once the founding editor was gone," says Garfinkle, "the magazine really floundered." Separately, Bauer Publishing has canceled Cocktail, a weekly magazine targeting young women with snarky celebrity gossip and fashion advice. The magazine launch was nixed because of "uncertain conditions in the single-copy marketplace."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
BoSacks Speaks Out: Fading Ads and the Future of Marketing
BoSacks Speaks Out: Here is a tale for Samir Husni, and the "Dead Tree Huggers Society" to ponder. As the story below suggests, history proves that there is always some room for change, and sometimes it happens in the most unlikely of places.
I have always stated that print will not go away, but rather be joined by its younger sibling BroDigital, who may one day turn out to be the biggest brother of them all. So it's all a matter of perspective. Which medium will have the most readers? Analog or digital? And in what time frame? What is your guess? Do you have children or grandchildren? What do they read and how do they get information?
BoSacks
-30-
"Generally students are the best vehicles for passing on ideas, for their thoughts are plastic and can be molded and they can adjust the ideas of old men to the shape of reality as they find it in villages and hills of China or in ghettos and suburbs of America."
Theodore H. White (English Journalist, Historian and Novelist, 1915-1986)
Signs of the Times: Fading Ads Hint at the Future of Marketing
An Author's Stroll Through a World of Ghost Messages
By Lenore Skenazy
http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=119015
If it's still a little hard to digest Bob Garfield's pronouncement that "Advertising is not the future of marketing," maybe it's time to take a walk with Ben Passikoff, or at least sit down with his book.
'The Writing on the Wall,' by Ben Passikoff
Ben is the 17-year-old author of "The Writing on the Wall," a high-school-project-turned-
coffee-table-book (AuthorHouse, $40) filled with photos of "ghost signs" -- those fantastic, faded, hand-painted ads you see on the sides of old buildings.
There are signs for garter belts and castor oil, men's hats and ladies' hotels. In other words: signs for the times that aren't coming back, no matter how much folks like me wish we could wake up, just for a day, in 1927. (And then eat lunch at an Automat.)
The lesson one gleans, however reluctantly, is that whatever seems absolutely immutable, isn't. Not what is advertised. Not how it is advertised. And certainly not the advertising job you go to every morning.
As Ben and I strolled up from Greenwich Village on a hunt for old signs, we were accompanied by his father, Brand Keys President Robert Passikoff. Proud papa used the opportunity to talk about his pet peeve: advertisers wasting their money on messages the public can't possibly believe. Young Passikoff listened politely, then talked about his pet peeve: doormen whose attitude you wouldn't believe. He'd had to charm quite a few of them into letting him come in and take pictures from their roofs. Some, alas, could not be charmed.
In between all this, the signs we spotted were talking, too, telling us the history of New York.
"They used to put them near churches and synagogues, because they knew that, once a week, people would see the signs," said Ben. Clever placement.
Generally the ads were for things close by -- a soda fountain, or a milliner's. "Before this book, I didn't even know what a milliner was," Ben confessed. (OK, 20-somethings: Look it up.)
One still perfectly legible sign on a former stable on East 17th Street reads, "To Let: Carriages, Coupes, Hansoms, Light Wagons." It also offers to board horses by the month.
Folks will always need their horses, right?
Another sign was for Facit brand typewriters.
Writers will always need those, will they not? Especially one from Facit.
But the largest number of signs, by far, were for garments and everything associated with the making of them, from sewing machines to pinking sheers to buttons. Some buildings listed dozens of businesses bustling inside: H. Goldfarb, Ladies Hats; LilyKnit Silk Underwear; Harris Suspenders... .
Men will always need suspenders, right?
That was certainly the assumption. Businesses kept opening up. "By 1900, the value and the output of the clothing industry was three times that of the second-largest industry, sugar refining," according to Ben's book.
Sugar refining? Who knew? But what's really amazing is how intrinsic the garment industry was to creating modern day New York. With garments came fashion, with fashion came chic, with chic came buzz. And with buzz, one could argue, came media and advertising.
And then ...
Things changed. Maybe the garment industry didn't exactly go the way of sugar refining, but it had to adapt to challenging times -- exactly what is happening now with that other quintessential New York industry: marketing.
Just as hand-painted signs made way for print, radio and TV -- and even to new, high-tech outdoor signs -- those media have to make way for the new, too. The industry is evolving, and those who don't evolve with it will fade like old paint.
Take a walk, spy some signs and you can see for yourself: Change is the history of commerce. The writing's on the wall.
I have always stated that print will not go away, but rather be joined by its younger sibling BroDigital, who may one day turn out to be the biggest brother of them all. So it's all a matter of perspective. Which medium will have the most readers? Analog or digital? And in what time frame? What is your guess? Do you have children or grandchildren? What do they read and how do they get information?
BoSacks
-30-
"Generally students are the best vehicles for passing on ideas, for their thoughts are plastic and can be molded and they can adjust the ideas of old men to the shape of reality as they find it in villages and hills of China or in ghettos and suburbs of America."
Theodore H. White (English Journalist, Historian and Novelist, 1915-1986)
Signs of the Times: Fading Ads Hint at the Future of Marketing
An Author's Stroll Through a World of Ghost Messages
By Lenore Skenazy
http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=119015
If it's still a little hard to digest Bob Garfield's pronouncement that "Advertising is not the future of marketing," maybe it's time to take a walk with Ben Passikoff, or at least sit down with his book.
'The Writing on the Wall,' by Ben Passikoff
Ben is the 17-year-old author of "The Writing on the Wall," a high-school-project-turned-
coffee-table-book (AuthorHouse, $40) filled with photos of "ghost signs" -- those fantastic, faded, hand-painted ads you see on the sides of old buildings.
There are signs for garter belts and castor oil, men's hats and ladies' hotels. In other words: signs for the times that aren't coming back, no matter how much folks like me wish we could wake up, just for a day, in 1927. (And then eat lunch at an Automat.)
The lesson one gleans, however reluctantly, is that whatever seems absolutely immutable, isn't. Not what is advertised. Not how it is advertised. And certainly not the advertising job you go to every morning.
As Ben and I strolled up from Greenwich Village on a hunt for old signs, we were accompanied by his father, Brand Keys President Robert Passikoff. Proud papa used the opportunity to talk about his pet peeve: advertisers wasting their money on messages the public can't possibly believe. Young Passikoff listened politely, then talked about his pet peeve: doormen whose attitude you wouldn't believe. He'd had to charm quite a few of them into letting him come in and take pictures from their roofs. Some, alas, could not be charmed.
In between all this, the signs we spotted were talking, too, telling us the history of New York.
"They used to put them near churches and synagogues, because they knew that, once a week, people would see the signs," said Ben. Clever placement.
Generally the ads were for things close by -- a soda fountain, or a milliner's. "Before this book, I didn't even know what a milliner was," Ben confessed. (OK, 20-somethings: Look it up.)
One still perfectly legible sign on a former stable on East 17th Street reads, "To Let: Carriages, Coupes, Hansoms, Light Wagons." It also offers to board horses by the month.
Folks will always need their horses, right?
Another sign was for Facit brand typewriters.
Writers will always need those, will they not? Especially one from Facit.
But the largest number of signs, by far, were for garments and everything associated with the making of them, from sewing machines to pinking sheers to buttons. Some buildings listed dozens of businesses bustling inside: H. Goldfarb, Ladies Hats; LilyKnit Silk Underwear; Harris Suspenders... .
Men will always need suspenders, right?
That was certainly the assumption. Businesses kept opening up. "By 1900, the value and the output of the clothing industry was three times that of the second-largest industry, sugar refining," according to Ben's book.
Sugar refining? Who knew? But what's really amazing is how intrinsic the garment industry was to creating modern day New York. With garments came fashion, with fashion came chic, with chic came buzz. And with buzz, one could argue, came media and advertising.
And then ...
Things changed. Maybe the garment industry didn't exactly go the way of sugar refining, but it had to adapt to challenging times -- exactly what is happening now with that other quintessential New York industry: marketing.
Just as hand-painted signs made way for print, radio and TV -- and even to new, high-tech outdoor signs -- those media have to make way for the new, too. The industry is evolving, and those who don't evolve with it will fade like old paint.
Take a walk, spy some signs and you can see for yourself: Change is the history of commerce. The writing's on the wall.
Brownridge to Challenge Wenner
"Revenge... is like a rolling stone, which, when a man hath forced up a hill, will return upon him with a greater violence, and break those bones whose sinews gave it motion."
Albert Schweitzer (German medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician and Philosopher. 1952 Nobel
Brownridge to Challenge Wenner
By Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003608478
Ever Since Kent Brownridge surfaced as a bidder for Dennis Publishing castoffs Maxim, Blender and Stuff, industry watchers have been atwitter about the possibility of a showdown between him and his old boss, Jann Wenner. Brownridge toiled for Wenner for 31 years, before "retiring" in the fall of 2005 (he said the decision to leave was his, but it's widely believed that he was bounced out after relations between he and Wenner soured). And those who have seen his fierce competitiveness in action expect him to jump at the chance to use it against his former employer.
"I think he would love to stick it in Jann's face, especially over what happened to him at the end," quipped one ex-employee.
Brownridge, who served for years as Wenner's consigliere and senior vp, general manager, would certainly have the knowhow to do so. "Kent makes Karl Rove look like a Sunday School teacher," said a former Wenner exec. (In a sense, that is not much of a stretch: Brownridge was once a political operative for George McGovern.)
But Brownridge has denied any feud-business or personal-exists between him and Wenner, calling him a "lifetime friend." "It's a natural thing for people to speculate that there's going to be a big rivalry," explained Brownridge. "My rivalry is with myself, to see if I can get out of myself what is necessary to do this. That is the question here, and not anything I might or could want to get out of Wenner." Jann Wenner declined to be interviewed, but said through a representative as he left for vacation, "We are very happy for him and wish him good luck."
Still, Maxim (and to some extent smaller sibling Stuff) and Blender have long butted heads with Wenner's Rolling Stone and Men's Journal for automotive, consumer electronics, liquor and other ad dollars. After Dennis launched Maxim in 1997 and Blender in 2001, Wenner went on the defensive, hiring laddie magazine editor Ed Needham from the now-defunct FHM to edit Rolling Stone. Former Wenner employees said anonymous e-mails were sent to Blender salespeople alleging circulation hanky-panky there, while others went to ad buyers, detailing salacious words in Maxim. Rolling Stone has since replaced Needham and amped up its serious journalism, but it still bears the influence of Blender's humorous, quick-read formula.
Brownridge, backed by private equity firm Quadrangle Group, has big plans to grow the company. Namely, by cross-selling the titles more aggressively than has been done in the past; leveraging selling opportunities with Maxim and its many brand extensions, including a planned casino and line of steakhouses; and expanding Maxim's reach online and on TV. "This is a company that makes plenty of money, and we just want to make more money," he said. "And eventually, we'll sell."
He certainly can point to a long record of successes at Wenner. He helped take the iconic Rolling Stone to profitability, was pivotal in the launch of Men's Journal in 1992, and led the evolution of Us into a weekly from a monthly frequency in 2000.
"It was a high-risk, high-wire act that turned into a success," he recalled of Us' transformation. "Everyone said it would be nuts, it would be Jann's Vietnam. We pulled it off. I wrote the business plan. It didn't work too well the first 15 months, but then it paid off. That'll never leave me." Indeed, Brownridge helped lure women's magazine vet Bonnie Fuller, who created the formula that can be seen in virtually every celeb weekly out there.
Terry McDonell, group editor of Time Inc.'s Sports Illustrated, who had editing roles at Men's Journal, Rolling Stone and Us Weekly during Brownridge's tenure, said his old boss was a master at positioning magazines, who saw early on the potential to differentiate Us from People by being celeb-friendly, and was quick to adjust the newsstand draw after single-copy sales were overestimated. "He's smart, moves very fast, is fearless," McDonell said.
"Everybody who knows him thinks he will do something incredibly interesting with this company."
In addition to his inside knowledge of Wenner gained from years as Jann Wenner's right-hand man, Brownridge will benefit from a number of Wenner alums working for him. Those include former Wenner chief financial officer John Lagana, now in the same role at Dennis; and one-time Rolling Stone publisher Rob Gregory, now group publisher of Maxim.
Injecting new life into the former Dennis titles will be one challenge. Maxim, Dennis' crown jewel, rode a wave of anti-P.C. sentiment to rapid success, but as the monthly has softened its image, some of its distinctiveness has been lost. Circ was flat at 2.5 million in the second half of 2006, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, while ad pages are down 8.1 percent this year through July, per the Mediaweek Monitor. And FHM, the chief rival to men's gadget title Stuff, is gone, at least in print. Brownridge is known for his circulation expertise, but the rules of the game have changed there, too. Some of the tactics practiced at Us, which as a monthly barely made rate base at times and used bulk copies to pump up circ, aren't likely to pass muster with media buyers today.
Filling out the executive ranks may be difficult. (Brownridge said he doesn't expect to make any personnel changes, but people who have worked for him expect that with his intense interest in the editorial side, he will look for another top editor for Maxim; he's already spoken to former Maxim editors Bill Shapiro and Mark Golin, now both at Time Inc.) Another logical hire would be Keith Blanchard, who was editor of Maxim before briefly running Wenner's Web sites. His ability to poach from Wenner is limited, thanks to contracts binding many top sales and editorial people he himself put in place (and that Jann Wenner has been known to enforce through litigation). The take-no-prisoners reputation he cultivated at Wenner may give other candidates pause, too.
Meanwhile, a sale process that stretched out over a year and a half has swamped the former Dennis titles with morale problems. As the sale dragged on, some employees left, and uncertainty about the company's future led some advertisers to pull back. Even the office bathrooms have been neglected.
Yet Brownridge, 66, is eager to get his hands dirty again. When he left Wenner, he retreated to his horse farm in Virginia, where he tried to live the life of a gentleman farmer. But it didn't last long. On nightly runs to Wal-Mart, he found find himself engrossed in the magazine racks, comparing magazine displays. It didn't take long for him to call up his friend, Peter Ezersky, a principal at Quadrangle, and pitch his services as a consultant. (Quadrangle tried to buy Time Inc.'s enthusiast group and a couple other publishing companies before winning the Dennis titles, for which it paid just north of $240 million.)
Brownridge said it wasn't money that lured him back. "I like to run things," he said. "Ever since I was a little kid, I liked to boss the other kids around. When you run things, you fix them, and make them better and see the results."
Albert Schweitzer (German medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician and Philosopher. 1952 Nobel
Brownridge to Challenge Wenner
By Lucia Moses
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003608478
Ever Since Kent Brownridge surfaced as a bidder for Dennis Publishing castoffs Maxim, Blender and Stuff, industry watchers have been atwitter about the possibility of a showdown between him and his old boss, Jann Wenner. Brownridge toiled for Wenner for 31 years, before "retiring" in the fall of 2005 (he said the decision to leave was his, but it's widely believed that he was bounced out after relations between he and Wenner soured). And those who have seen his fierce competitiveness in action expect him to jump at the chance to use it against his former employer.
"I think he would love to stick it in Jann's face, especially over what happened to him at the end," quipped one ex-employee.
Brownridge, who served for years as Wenner's consigliere and senior vp, general manager, would certainly have the knowhow to do so. "Kent makes Karl Rove look like a Sunday School teacher," said a former Wenner exec. (In a sense, that is not much of a stretch: Brownridge was once a political operative for George McGovern.)
But Brownridge has denied any feud-business or personal-exists between him and Wenner, calling him a "lifetime friend." "It's a natural thing for people to speculate that there's going to be a big rivalry," explained Brownridge. "My rivalry is with myself, to see if I can get out of myself what is necessary to do this. That is the question here, and not anything I might or could want to get out of Wenner." Jann Wenner declined to be interviewed, but said through a representative as he left for vacation, "We are very happy for him and wish him good luck."
Still, Maxim (and to some extent smaller sibling Stuff) and Blender have long butted heads with Wenner's Rolling Stone and Men's Journal for automotive, consumer electronics, liquor and other ad dollars. After Dennis launched Maxim in 1997 and Blender in 2001, Wenner went on the defensive, hiring laddie magazine editor Ed Needham from the now-defunct FHM to edit Rolling Stone. Former Wenner employees said anonymous e-mails were sent to Blender salespeople alleging circulation hanky-panky there, while others went to ad buyers, detailing salacious words in Maxim. Rolling Stone has since replaced Needham and amped up its serious journalism, but it still bears the influence of Blender's humorous, quick-read formula.
Brownridge, backed by private equity firm Quadrangle Group, has big plans to grow the company. Namely, by cross-selling the titles more aggressively than has been done in the past; leveraging selling opportunities with Maxim and its many brand extensions, including a planned casino and line of steakhouses; and expanding Maxim's reach online and on TV. "This is a company that makes plenty of money, and we just want to make more money," he said. "And eventually, we'll sell."
He certainly can point to a long record of successes at Wenner. He helped take the iconic Rolling Stone to profitability, was pivotal in the launch of Men's Journal in 1992, and led the evolution of Us into a weekly from a monthly frequency in 2000.
"It was a high-risk, high-wire act that turned into a success," he recalled of Us' transformation. "Everyone said it would be nuts, it would be Jann's Vietnam. We pulled it off. I wrote the business plan. It didn't work too well the first 15 months, but then it paid off. That'll never leave me." Indeed, Brownridge helped lure women's magazine vet Bonnie Fuller, who created the formula that can be seen in virtually every celeb weekly out there.
Terry McDonell, group editor of Time Inc.'s Sports Illustrated, who had editing roles at Men's Journal, Rolling Stone and Us Weekly during Brownridge's tenure, said his old boss was a master at positioning magazines, who saw early on the potential to differentiate Us from People by being celeb-friendly, and was quick to adjust the newsstand draw after single-copy sales were overestimated. "He's smart, moves very fast, is fearless," McDonell said.
"Everybody who knows him thinks he will do something incredibly interesting with this company."
In addition to his inside knowledge of Wenner gained from years as Jann Wenner's right-hand man, Brownridge will benefit from a number of Wenner alums working for him. Those include former Wenner chief financial officer John Lagana, now in the same role at Dennis; and one-time Rolling Stone publisher Rob Gregory, now group publisher of Maxim.
Injecting new life into the former Dennis titles will be one challenge. Maxim, Dennis' crown jewel, rode a wave of anti-P.C. sentiment to rapid success, but as the monthly has softened its image, some of its distinctiveness has been lost. Circ was flat at 2.5 million in the second half of 2006, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, while ad pages are down 8.1 percent this year through July, per the Mediaweek Monitor. And FHM, the chief rival to men's gadget title Stuff, is gone, at least in print. Brownridge is known for his circulation expertise, but the rules of the game have changed there, too. Some of the tactics practiced at Us, which as a monthly barely made rate base at times and used bulk copies to pump up circ, aren't likely to pass muster with media buyers today.
Filling out the executive ranks may be difficult. (Brownridge said he doesn't expect to make any personnel changes, but people who have worked for him expect that with his intense interest in the editorial side, he will look for another top editor for Maxim; he's already spoken to former Maxim editors Bill Shapiro and Mark Golin, now both at Time Inc.) Another logical hire would be Keith Blanchard, who was editor of Maxim before briefly running Wenner's Web sites. His ability to poach from Wenner is limited, thanks to contracts binding many top sales and editorial people he himself put in place (and that Jann Wenner has been known to enforce through litigation). The take-no-prisoners reputation he cultivated at Wenner may give other candidates pause, too.
Meanwhile, a sale process that stretched out over a year and a half has swamped the former Dennis titles with morale problems. As the sale dragged on, some employees left, and uncertainty about the company's future led some advertisers to pull back. Even the office bathrooms have been neglected.
Yet Brownridge, 66, is eager to get his hands dirty again. When he left Wenner, he retreated to his horse farm in Virginia, where he tried to live the life of a gentleman farmer. But it didn't last long. On nightly runs to Wal-Mart, he found find himself engrossed in the magazine racks, comparing magazine displays. It didn't take long for him to call up his friend, Peter Ezersky, a principal at Quadrangle, and pitch his services as a consultant. (Quadrangle tried to buy Time Inc.'s enthusiast group and a couple other publishing companies before winning the Dennis titles, for which it paid just north of $240 million.)
Brownridge said it wasn't money that lured him back. "I like to run things," he said. "Ever since I was a little kid, I liked to boss the other kids around. When you run things, you fix them, and make them better and see the results."
Monday, July 09, 2007
BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Why The Newsstand is Dead!
"Most executives, many scientists, and almost all business school graduates believe that if you analyze data, this will give you new ideas. Unfortunately, this belief is totally wrong. The mind can only see what it is prepared to see."
Edward de Bono ((Francis Charles Publius) Maltese Psychologist and Writer, leading authority in field of creative thinking. b.1933)
BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Why The Newsstand is Dead!
www.bosacks.com
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Bo, It was a great presentation between you and Samir and I thoroughly enjoyed both. Samir was more entertaining, but that is his nature. But I also enjoyed the technology that you introduced and your arguments were very persuasive.
You're almost spot on in your interpretation of the newsstand business being the Titanic. You could also say that all of us worker bees are the soldiers on the way to Gallipoli, and the industry leaders are those genius British nobles who think charging machine guns is a good idea.
I've sat through several presentations by the giants of our industry recently and they all talk a great game about reducing inventories, increasing efficiencies, restoring shareholder value and all that rot. It's great business speak and maybe someone out there is impressed.
But what they forget is that we are in business to sell stuff and until they start talking about selling stuff, we're dead in the water, or wondering why the hell we're charging that machine gun.
We're dead, or dying, because we are poorly led. We're poorly led because the publishers want one thing, the national distributors want something else, the wholesalers want something entirely different (to get out of the business?), and the retailers want something entirely different.
As a representative of a publisher, what is sad about this is all the time and energy these editors and art directors put into putting something together for their readers, and then the mishandling that goes on because the four links in the chain are going in different directions. In the end, the reader is poorly served. To me, that's almost criminal.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I stay in the business because selling insurance has even less appeal. And I do genuinely like most of the people I interact with.
(Submitted by a Publishers Rep)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Good One!! I support you!!! The same situation existed in the paperback industry, when the newsstands, (supermarkets, drugstores) were displaced by the large Bookstore Chains.. The same thing has happened now in magazines, with supermarkets, drugstores giving up on the magazine display rack and looking at the checkout only...The amount of display space lost in the last ten years is staggering!!
(Submitted by an Unknown)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
I have concluded that even in my micro-publishing world, the distros and chain stores are colluding to "wallpaper" with our titles. I recently cut my draw at a major chain (for all three titles) 25%. When the next issue's sales came in, you know how many copy sales I lost? Zero. Actually, sales *increased.* It amazes me that more publishers don't "get it" - with the store-by-store detail now available to us, there's no reason on earth why we should put our zines into stores in which they do not sell. But getting a draw cut requires nerves of steel and a rather aggressive personality; neither the distributors nor the chains will do it themselves. Fortunately, I have both of these qualities, which might be why my sell through averages 50%. (A recent issue hit 62%, I'm happy to say.)
Personally, I believe that magazines should be sold at approx. 80% discount, with no return privileges. You heard me; NO RETURNS. This would put the onus for newsstand management and draw-setting where it belongs: on the retailer and the distributor. Yes, circ would take a huge hit if the true costs of returns were distributed more evenly, instead of the publisher subsidizing the bad habits of the retailers. I have no-returns contracts with several of my distributors, and believe me, they keep their draws tight and their sell throughs average 80%. I'm happy as a clam at high tide with such an arrangement, and know that as long as I keep my content strong, my newsstand will thrive. Three quarters of my income comes from newsstand, so this is my bread and butter. I'm truly appalled at the waste I see on newsstand, and think major changes are vastly overdue.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Bo. You and Samir exceeded my expectations in your debate. You are both very entertaining and informative. It was a terrific hour and I hope that you become a regular event at the PBAA, as your rant about why the newsstand is dead clearly demonstrated the need. Congratulations on speaking out on the very hard topics of our industry.
(Submitted by a Distributor)
RE: Abitibi Consolidated/Bowater merger
Bo, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission okayed the merger of the two corporations subject to stock holders approval at special meetings on July 26, 2007.
If this merger becomes finalized and these two manufactures of newsprint, groundwood specialties, SC grades, etc., come together, end users and brokers better be ready for some major changes, because business will not be done as usual.
For years, many endusers and brokers have been playing off these two companies
against each other. This system will abruptly come to an end if this merger is finalized.
(Submitted by a Paper Person)
Re: There Are More Magazines Than You Think
I guarantee that MPA doesn't know that I exist, and I have three quarterlies, total yearly page count approx. 1000 pages and am going to launch a semi-annual next year. I don't support a lot of people and have a gross sales of under a half million $ a year. But yes, I've been making a living off publishing magazines for over fifteen years, and except for a stint with the (alas, defunct) IPA, I have never joined an industry group.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Re: There Are More Magazines Than You Think
Does this include all the special issues, special interest publications, etc
etc? It's always exciting to see a new mag (well, for me anyway) but there
are dozens of SIPs a year from Meredith alone, and special (additional)
issues of People almost every week. No wonder the page count (advertising)
is predicted to be down.
(Submitted by a Newsstand Operator)
Re: Prostitution Is Legal
And the magazine industry can't figure out why our profession is in free-fall. I'd laugh myself silly if I didn't want to cry so bad.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Edward de Bono ((Francis Charles Publius) Maltese Psychologist and Writer, leading authority in field of creative thinking. b.1933)
BoSacks Readers Speak Out: Why The Newsstand is Dead!
www.bosacks.com
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Bo, It was a great presentation between you and Samir and I thoroughly enjoyed both. Samir was more entertaining, but that is his nature. But I also enjoyed the technology that you introduced and your arguments were very persuasive.
You're almost spot on in your interpretation of the newsstand business being the Titanic. You could also say that all of us worker bees are the soldiers on the way to Gallipoli, and the industry leaders are those genius British nobles who think charging machine guns is a good idea.
I've sat through several presentations by the giants of our industry recently and they all talk a great game about reducing inventories, increasing efficiencies, restoring shareholder value and all that rot. It's great business speak and maybe someone out there is impressed.
But what they forget is that we are in business to sell stuff and until they start talking about selling stuff, we're dead in the water, or wondering why the hell we're charging that machine gun.
We're dead, or dying, because we are poorly led. We're poorly led because the publishers want one thing, the national distributors want something else, the wholesalers want something entirely different (to get out of the business?), and the retailers want something entirely different.
As a representative of a publisher, what is sad about this is all the time and energy these editors and art directors put into putting something together for their readers, and then the mishandling that goes on because the four links in the chain are going in different directions. In the end, the reader is poorly served. To me, that's almost criminal.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I stay in the business because selling insurance has even less appeal. And I do genuinely like most of the people I interact with.
(Submitted by a Publishers Rep)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Good One!! I support you!!! The same situation existed in the paperback industry, when the newsstands, (supermarkets, drugstores) were displaced by the large Bookstore Chains.. The same thing has happened now in magazines, with supermarkets, drugstores giving up on the magazine display rack and looking at the checkout only...The amount of display space lost in the last ten years is staggering!!
(Submitted by an Unknown)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
I have concluded that even in my micro-publishing world, the distros and chain stores are colluding to "wallpaper" with our titles. I recently cut my draw at a major chain (for all three titles) 25%. When the next issue's sales came in, you know how many copy sales I lost? Zero. Actually, sales *increased.* It amazes me that more publishers don't "get it" - with the store-by-store detail now available to us, there's no reason on earth why we should put our zines into stores in which they do not sell. But getting a draw cut requires nerves of steel and a rather aggressive personality; neither the distributors nor the chains will do it themselves. Fortunately, I have both of these qualities, which might be why my sell through averages 50%. (A recent issue hit 62%, I'm happy to say.)
Personally, I believe that magazines should be sold at approx. 80% discount, with no return privileges. You heard me; NO RETURNS. This would put the onus for newsstand management and draw-setting where it belongs: on the retailer and the distributor. Yes, circ would take a huge hit if the true costs of returns were distributed more evenly, instead of the publisher subsidizing the bad habits of the retailers. I have no-returns contracts with several of my distributors, and believe me, they keep their draws tight and their sell throughs average 80%. I'm happy as a clam at high tide with such an arrangement, and know that as long as I keep my content strong, my newsstand will thrive. Three quarters of my income comes from newsstand, so this is my bread and butter. I'm truly appalled at the waste I see on newsstand, and think major changes are vastly overdue.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Why Newsstand is Dead?
Bo. You and Samir exceeded my expectations in your debate. You are both very entertaining and informative. It was a terrific hour and I hope that you become a regular event at the PBAA, as your rant about why the newsstand is dead clearly demonstrated the need. Congratulations on speaking out on the very hard topics of our industry.
(Submitted by a Distributor)
RE: Abitibi Consolidated/Bowater merger
Bo, The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission okayed the merger of the two corporations subject to stock holders approval at special meetings on July 26, 2007.
If this merger becomes finalized and these two manufactures of newsprint, groundwood specialties, SC grades, etc., come together, end users and brokers better be ready for some major changes, because business will not be done as usual.
For years, many endusers and brokers have been playing off these two companies
against each other. This system will abruptly come to an end if this merger is finalized.
(Submitted by a Paper Person)
Re: There Are More Magazines Than You Think
I guarantee that MPA doesn't know that I exist, and I have three quarterlies, total yearly page count approx. 1000 pages and am going to launch a semi-annual next year. I don't support a lot of people and have a gross sales of under a half million $ a year. But yes, I've been making a living off publishing magazines for over fifteen years, and except for a stint with the (alas, defunct) IPA, I have never joined an industry group.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Re: There Are More Magazines Than You Think
Does this include all the special issues, special interest publications, etc
etc? It's always exciting to see a new mag (well, for me anyway) but there
are dozens of SIPs a year from Meredith alone, and special (additional)
issues of People almost every week. No wonder the page count (advertising)
is predicted to be down.
(Submitted by a Newsstand Operator)
Re: Prostitution Is Legal
And the magazine industry can't figure out why our profession is in free-fall. I'd laugh myself silly if I didn't want to cry so bad.
(Submitted by a Publisher)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)