The Cover Price Conundrum

The Cover Price Conundrum
By Jason Fell

Increased production costs and pressures from distributors have publishers weighing the option of raising their cover prices. But, will a price spike bolster their bottom line or make their readers revolt?

Publishers have no shortage of pressures to raise their cover prices. Wholesalers and distributors argue that lower cover prices don't generate enough revenue to cover handling costs. Spikes in paper prices and increased postal delivery rates don't help either. Publishers of all sizes and demographics this year have considered raising their cover prices and some have taken the plunge-many with positive results.

As reported by John Harrington, publisher of The New Single Copy newsletter, more than 100 magazines raised their cover prices in the first half of this year-up about 30 percent over the same period in 2006. Of those, a third managed to increase their newsstand sales per-issue and more than 60 percent experienced better-than-inflation growth in retail dollar sales. "The market has been relatively friendly to a reasonable level of cover price increase," Harrington tells FOLIO:. "More than 30 percent see their units increase, and others see the dollars increase more than their units decline. They are generating more revenue and are making themselves more valuable to wholesalers an retailers."

What's a Dollar, Anyway?

One example Harrington highlights is OK! which upped its cover price from $1.99 to $2.99. The global celebrity gossip magazine saw its newsstand sales skyrocket 25.3 percent to 419,000 units per issue. That jump, Harrington says, may have been one reason why competing celebrity magazine giant Bauer Publishing-the company that pioneered low newsstand cover pricing-announced in August plans to modify its cover pricing strategy.

Another prime example of a successful cover price hike this year, Harrington says, is The Economist, which increased to $5.99 at the beginning of the year from $4.99. It was the first newsweekly to take its cover price over the $5 mark. Newsstand sales were up more than 10 percent during the first half of the year.

"It gets back to the editorial mission of the magazine, and we position ourselves as a premium product," explains Paul Rossi, publisher of The Economist North America. "If you have a very strong connection with the reader then you can charge more. For magazines with strong readerships, there's not much difference in a reader's mind between spending [a dollar more per issue]. It's not about gouging the customer. It's about understanding the value that people put on your product and pricing accordingly. Those people who love you will pay." At $129 per year, The Economist also has one of the highest subscription rates in its segment, Rossi says.

But, The Economist's spike in sales isn't attributable only to its increased cover price, but has been related in part to a ramped up marketing campaign, says Rossi.

Enthusiast publisher Active Interest Media increased cover prices on two of its titles. It set the price on Backpacker at $4.50 (Rodale used two prices: $4.50 in the specialty market and $3.99 elsewhere). It also raised the cover price on Timber Home Living from $4.99 to $5.99.

"There was revenue upside and not much risk for lowered sales," says Patricia Fox, Active Interest Media's senior vice president for operations and general manager of its Healthy Living Group. "Our magazines are priced at least at $4.99 and are very competitive in their markets."

Fox, like Rossi, believes that publishers will see positive results from raising cover prices if their editorial content is strong. "We don't particularly want to be the newsstand price leader, but will raise our prices when it makes competitive and financial sense." Next year, Active Interest Media plans also to raise cover prices on BlackBelt, from $4.99 to $5.99.

The New Single Copy's Harrington says he doesn't expect a surge in publishers raising cover prices next year. "Generally, the results this year have been good," he says. "If you look at most of the magazines that declined in units after increasing their cover prices you'll see that they were already in a trend of losing units. What I think will be interesting to watch are publishers like Bauer, which used to heavily advertise their low cover prices, and how they make out over the next few months."

BoSacks Speaks Out: Steering the "New World Digital Order

Steering the "New World Digital Order"By BoSacks
http://www.pubexec.com/story/story.bsp?sid=83154&var=story

There is a book by Ray Kurzweil called "The Singularity Is Near." In this book, Mr. Kurzweil has a theory about The Law of Accelerating Returns, which states that in today's business environment, "Change happens faster than we are able to forecast or predict it." This is a departure not only from long ago, but from our more recent past as well. There was, in our lifetime, the possibility of accurately predicting technologic growth. Those days have gone up in digital smoke. Technologic growth that once took multiple generations to achieve now happens in months.

Another of Mr. Kurzweil's concepts is that the rate of technologic change is not linear, but exponential. This is not a new concept to anyone in the publishing field.

Everyone knows that I love technology and the possibilities that it holds, especially for those in our industry. We are, no doubt, on the bleeding edge compared to most other professionals. Retailers, lawyers, cabbies, mothers and most others, although impacted every day by the new world digital order, are affected somewhat less visibly than those of us who transmit information in the forms of magazines, newspapers, newsletters and the like. We are pushing and prodding the system to go ever faster.

Over the past decade, publishers have digitally married the electronic workflow. It occurred to me this morning that a magazine can no longer be produced without a computer. This is not a shocking discovery, but it did make me stop and think. From the written word pecked out on a keyboard, e-mailed and clipped by the editor, formatted and manipulated by the art director, spun with great skill and digital alchemy by the production elite, and converted by the printer magically to CTP, there is no longer any step in the process that is not fully and completely computerized. The presses are controlled by digits, the bindery is efficiently automated, and the bundling and shipping is all tagged and directed by database files. In the near future, magazines will likely have little computer chips called RFID imbedded into them for further electronic enhancement and accountability.

But what exactly have we produced with all this speed and technology? We have precision-engineered a book, a magazine or a newspaper--all three printed on paper. We have created a product that requires no electricity to operate. You don't need to plug it in or even attach a cord. In fact, if you do have a cord, it won't fit. It is not sensitive to magnetic surges or system failures of any kind. If left alone, it retains its imagery indefinitely. It can be dropped, stepped upon and will still be totally functional. And if, God forbid, you should spill coffee on it, for a few bucks you can get an exact duplicate. Basically, the format can never become outdated.

So now that that is out of my system, I can move on. Mr. Kurzweil is right about the dramatic speed of change, and that change has affected society as well as technology. And although the printed product is near perfection, there is one thing that it just cannot do, and that is refresh, change and update itself. Once, these were unnecessary, unsought-after functions. Now, we may have a society that demands them.

Here is another interesting thought on technology and our new society that comes from the findings of an in-depth, seven-month study by MTV and the Associated Press on happiness and young people: How happy are they, what makes them happy, and what are they doing to ensure future happiness? The results are that cell phones, the Internet and other technologies are woven into the lives of today's young people, and nearly two-thirds say that technology makes them happier.

What we have now in "screenagers" is a generation that has the ability to be in touch with each other immediately starting at earlier and earlier ages. This new generation of kids is naturally adept with technology and the speed of its change. They are comfortable with having virtual access to friends, family and the world at large. This is a generation that is just as comfortable with digital delivery as it is with bound books.

My conclusion from all this is that there is a very positive and robust future for publishers. We have the technology to print perfect books and magazines for those who desire them. We also have the ability to reach out to new generations of readers in new formats such as e-paper, cell phones and PDAs, and who knows what is right around the corner. All that matters is that we monetize our franchise and deliver our product to readers everywhere and anywhere they would like it.

Bob Sacks (aka BoSacks) is a consultant to the printing/publishing industry and president of The Precision Media Group (www.BoSacks.com). He is publisher and editor of a daily international e-newsletter, Heard on the Web. Sacks has held posts as director of manufacturing and distribution, senior sales manager (paper), chief of operations, pressman, cameraman and often called a new age corporate janitor.

Dennis Publishing Releases Facebook 'Bookazine'

Dennis taps into Facebook craze
By Stephen Brook
Facebookers of the world who while away their waking hours on the social networking website poking friends and playing Scrabulous can now read all about it - in a Facebook magazine.

Dennis Publishing is getting in on the Facebook craze by launching a "bookazine" - a magazine/book hybrid - about the networking website.

Facebook magazine: includes a section on how to create a real-life Facebook event The bookazine, which hit shops this week in time for the Christmas market, is part of the magazine company's growth strategy.

The 148-page publication, produced without the cooperation of the social networking website, includes articles "Famous on Facebook" and "Create a real life Facebook event".

Bruce Sandell, the managing director of Dennis' lifestyle division, said: "The Facebook Bookazine started quite simply.

"Like many media companies we have a huge amount of Facebook fans at Dennis - we thought we could channel that enthusiasm with our expert knowledge of 'how to' bookazines to make a really compelling product that taps into a massive consumer interest at exactly the right time.

"The bookazine will be bought by Facebook experts and novices alike, as it covers everything from a step by step guide to getting started through to smart security tips."

Dennis has developed 15 Dennis bookazines on topics including iPhone, the iPod, high-definition television and men's fitness.

Other magazine companies such as the National Magazine Company also regularly produce bookazines.

Dennis has printed 20,000 copies of the Facebook bookazine, fewer than a normal magazine, but the bookazine costs £5.99 and has a longer shelf life than magazines, staying on shelves for up to six months.

Dennis will monitor sales before deciding if it will produce a sequel.
the company has just established a product development unit to create new websites and magazines, headed by Sandell.

The Dennis chief executive, James Tye, said: "The Facebook bookazine highlights the spirit of innovation that we encourage as a company and shows how quickly a great idea can be developed and launched.
"Our new product development team at Dennis was launched to work on exactly this basis and bring products to life swiftly."

Tell me the Future

Tell me the Future
The Guardian

When we asked Vint Cerf, chief evangelist at Google, to guest edit MediaGuardian, we expected him to bring us some luminaries of the web who we don't often get to hear from. His choices transform an often-asked question ("what's the future?"), into an insight into the thinking of innovators and pioneers. It's no coincidence that three of them are founders of some of the biggest web names.

Their specialist fields (from search, to advertising, video streaming to social networking) represent what Cerf believes to be the most exciting areas of development on the web and in the world; notably Steven Huter and Adiel Akplogan, who have pioneered the internet infrastructure in Africa.

Finally, each one has had, and will continue to have, a profound impact on the future of media.



Social networking
Chris De Wolfe
CEO, co-founder MySpace
In only a few years, social networks have become a staple in the internet landscape as the social networking phenomenon allowed people to "put their lives online". A person's profile became a representation of who they really were in the offline world, and allowed them to transfer their offline world online.

More than ever, social networks are blurring online and offline worlds, evolving into social destinations that are driving the direction of the larger web and affecting industries like advertising, music and politics.

Predicting the future of social networks exclusively misses the larger point - these evolving online social destinations are laying the groundwork for the new social web which we believe is becoming infinitely more personal, more portable, and more collaborative.

First, as we expand these social destinations to all corners of the world, we must always think in terms of the individual. With millions of people using social websites, there's an increasing demand to make everyone's web experience personal. In the same way a home or office is your physical address, we expect your personal, online social profile to become your internet address. When I give out www.myspace.com/chrisdewolfe to friends and colleagues, everyone knows where to find me online.

We expect aspects of all socially-based sites to become increasingly portable. In terms of mobile, we expect to have relationships with every carrier and device-maker in the world and we expect that half of our future traffic will come from non-PC users.
Social activity is happening everywhere and we expect applications and features to be more fluid, based on the online population that want content where they want it, when they want it, and how they want it. Social activity should be portable and we expect the industry will continue to move in that direction.

Lastly, online social destinations work best when creativity and development are collaborative concepts. From personal profiles, to the widget economy, to the OpenSocial standard - the future of the social web will harness the savvy of the masses to produce more relevant and meaningful social experiences, ultimately pushing the larger industry to be more innovative and progressive.

Lowering the barrier to entry for a new generation of developers will lead to a more collaborative and dynamic web and directly affect the tools and feature sets available on socially-based sites. Supporting a more collaborative web creates a more global and participatory internet experience for everyone.

The evolution of social networks is kick-starting a broad global shift for how people, content and culture collide on the web. Right now we're looking at the tip of the iceberg for what the social web will look like in the future. Fundamentally, all social destinations must expand while staying personal, they must engage users while empowering portability, and they must work with up and coming innovators and major web leaders to both collaborate and contribute to the larger web community.

Advertising
Maurice Lévy
Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe

Five years is an eternity in technology, but from our vantage point a few things are clear about what the internet and internet advertising will look like in 2012. One, virtually all media will be digital, and digital will enable almost all kinds of advertising. Two, online advertising will depend more than ever on the one element which has always been at the heart of impactful advertising, both analogue and digital: creativity. The explosion of media channels means this is a glorious time to think and act creatively. In art history terms, we are at the dawn of the Renaissance after the Dark Ages.

Just as the Renaissance broke down the distinctions between sacred and profane art forms and between individual and community, so we are seeing a similar exciting blurring today - and this will only intensify. Linear media is fast giving way to liquid media, where you can move seamlessly in and out of different settings. Prescribed time - the 7 o'clock news, the Friday night out at the cinema, etc - is now becoming multitasking time. People are no longer willing to put up with interruptions for a commercial break during their entertainment experience, and so we have to find incredibly creative solutions to interact with them and engage them in genuine and honest ways. This implies a brave new world of engagement and involvement between marketers and consumers and will also mean co-production between marketers and media owners. Scale will be critical: in five years' time, around 2 billion people will be constant internet users and mobile internet computing will be ubiquitous. What a great time to be in the business!

Mobile
Biz Stone
Co-founder, Twitter
As we increasingly realise the web as a vital social utility and important marketplace we cannot ignore an even bigger potential. The power of the internet is not limited to the PC. Twitter has emerged to create a seamless layer of social connectivity across SMS, IM, and the web. Operating on the simple concept of status, Twitter asks one question: "What are you doing?" Friends, family and colleagues stay connected through short responses.

The potential for this simple form of hybrid communication technology is strong. For example, a person in India may text "Follow Biz" and get online via Twitter over SMS in a matter of seconds. Biz might be updating from the US on a PC. Nevertheless, the updates are exchanged instantly.

Our future holds in store the promise of increased connectivity to a powerful social internet which truly extends to every little spot on our Planet Earth. We're all affected by and defined by each other's actions. What are you doing?

Search
Peter Norvig
Director of research, Google
Yale librarian Rutherford Rogers said "We're drowning in information and starving for knowledge." The internet is an ocean of information and in the near future we'll speed through it effortlessly and intuitively, like a tuna. No, I don't mean you'll have fins.

If you haven't been searching for [tuna tail vortices] recently, you may not know that a tuna's body creates small vortices in the water that are then channelled by the tuna's tail to create additional power.

This symbiosis of tuna and watery environment forms a more efficient propulsion system than anything designed by human engineers.

In the future, a similar symbiosis of searcher and computational environment will allow us to move faster through the internet than we would have thought possible. We will not just be typing in keywords and getting back a list of 10 web pages.

Instead, our interaction will be more fluid, our computers will accept our requests in many forms, and will scan our environment proactively, looking for ways to provide us with additional power. We will get back web pages, yes, along with existing books and videos, but also custom tables, charts, animations, databases, and summarisations created on-the-fly in response to our specific needs.

Today, nobody says "I need to connect to a megawatt power station" - instead we assume that electricity will be available on demand in almost every room of every building we visit. Edison could see that this would be useful, but could not foresee the range of appliances, from food processors to mp3 players, that this availability would enable. So too will information flow freely to us in the future, and be transformed by as-yet-unforeseen information appliances.

Archive
Bruce Cole
Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities (US)
At the National Endowment for the Humanities, we believe the internet and other information-age tools, such as digital archiving, will help us understand the world more deeply, broadly, and creatively. For humanists just as much for scientists, the ability to mine, analyse, and understand data, simulate complex environments, and combine information from a wide variety of sources, is critical to 21st-century discovery and innovation.
The exciting new tools of the digital age also present unique challenges. With digital technologies, we can comb through information in seconds versus years, and assimilate knowledge from a much broader array of sources for new insights. But the wellbeing of the infrastructure itself demands new time-frames. Information in books can be preserved for centuries before transfer to new "media" is needed. Information on disks, thumb drives, and other digital media has a lifespan measured in years or even months rather than centuries before transfer to the next generation of media is required.

Just as physical infrastructure is a foundation for modern life, digital infrastructure (data storage, computers, networks, etc.) is foundational infrastructure for the information age. Attention to the health and support of this infrastructure is critical to ensuring that born-digital knowledge is preserved and passed on for the benefit of future generations.

Roy Reiman Speaks Out; Setting the Record Straight:

Bringing Down the House of Reiman: Roy Reiman's on the record response
Posted by Samir Husni
http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/

I have never written a blog that generated more responses and counter responses than the one I wrote on Bringing Down the House of Reiman one "Ripple" at a Time take one and take two. My friend Bob Sacks picked up the blog on his electronic newsletter Bosacks.com and even more people responded to the blog including Ellen Morgenstern, director of public relations at Reader's Digest Association. Well, the man himself who founded Reiman publications has decided to respond to all the responses regarding my piece on Reiman publications. What follows is Roy's response (on the record for the first time) to Ms. Morgenstern and others. Following his response is Bob Sacks' entry regarding the matter and Ellen Morgenstern's letter to Bob regarding the same issue. I look forward to other "on the record" comments about this important issue regarding magazine publishing, ownership and the possibility to publish magazines in this day and age with or without advertising.


Roy Reiman on setting the record straight:

"The writing has been on the wall for some time that a 'no advertising' model no longer works in this day and age. Even Roy Reiman's new magazine venture, 'Our Iowa', accepts advertising." -Ellen Morgenstern, Reader's Digest
There she goes again-contending that a "no ad" magazine couldn't make it today . . . and contending that even I no longer believe so, because we're accepting advertising in Our Iowa. I've watched from the sidelines and tried to stay out of this fray, because I recognize that when someone buys a company, the buyer has the right to be wrong. But after seeing the quote above-for the second time at that-I can no longer resist sharing my opinion. I've concluded that if I don't respond, it will not only add credence to her comment, but may appear I have no opinion or don't care what's happening to my old company, when the truth is I care a great deal. I don't appreciate her implying that I no longer believe in the no-ad concept without first checking with me.

The fact is I believe as strongly today as ever that it can be achieved with a national magazine that is truly different, sparkles with creativity and delivers what readers can't easily find elsewhere. The lack of advertising was the most noticeable difference our 16 million subscribers mentioned and appreciated, and now-with the acceptance of advertising-that uniqueness is gone. The problem with Ellen's conclusion is she's comparing apples to tomatoes. Here's why: With today's printing, paper and postage costs, you need about 1 million paid subscribers to make a go of it with a no-ad magazine. Well, when you have a NATIONAL magazine directed at the U.S. population of nearly 300 million people, garnering 1 million subscribers is a reachable goal. I feel that's still currently attainable with the right kind of magazine.

As I've often said, if you can't lure 1 million subscribers from a 300-million audience, maybe your new magazine isn't really that good after all. But when you have a REGIONAL magazine, such as Our Iowa, directed at a much smaller audience (Iowa's population is 2.8 million), any logical person would understand that attracting 1 million subscribers is out of reach. In that kind of limited market, you need the ancillary support of advertising. The comparison and facts are that simple. I've never been "against advertising". My first success was with a magazine supported solely by ads, with no paid subscribers. But I also learned-with the right concept-you can make it without ads as well. We successfully launched 14 national magazines without advertising, eventually topping 16 million paid subscribers. But not one of those magazines would have made it without advertising if it had been limited to a single state or regional audience. This being the case, it bugs me big time that Ellen keeps implying I've "caved in" and that I no longer believe a NATIONAL magazine can make it without advertising . . . and bases her conclusion on what she now sees I'm doing with a REGIONAL magazine. For her to keep using me as a defense of RDA's move to accepting advertising by asserting "even Roy Reiman knows that times have changed", as she was quoted recently, is very disturbing, especially in view of her added comment: "It is normal to have disgruntled former employees acting as 'sources', but there's always another side of the story." I find that comment particularly interesting, when it appears she is now acting as the "source" of my thinking, without first checking my side of the story. Most bothersome of all, though, is her assertion that a "no advertising model no longer works in this day and age". That comment minimizes and discredits the efforts of the incredibly creative crew at our company that successfully launched 14 national no-ad magazines over the years . . . and likely, if we surrounded up the best of them, would love the challenge of making it happen again today.
-Roy Reiman, Founder Reiman Publications


Ellen Morgenstern's letter to Bob Sacks regarding my blog:

Dear Bob, I respect that you are servicing the publishing industry with your independent voice and insider's perspective. You keep your fingers on the pulse of what's current for publishers. Therefore, I am perplexed why you would choose to recycle Samir Husni's column from August, where unidentified sources complain about changes taking place at the former Reiman publications under the Reader's Digest Association.

You know this is old news, and you already posted readers' responses.After changes, it is normal to have disgruntled former employees acting as "sources," but there's always another side to the story. Here are a few points to consider: The writing has been on the wall for some time that a "no advertising" model no longer works in this day and age. Even Roy Reiman's new magazine venture, "Our Iowa," accepts advertising.The ads appear to be a non-issue for our readers. We received but a handful of letters expressing concern. (One loyal reader even sent a $5 cash donation in sympathy with the rising costs of printing and publishing!)

The sale of Reiman to RDA made sense for both parties because of the natural synergies between the companies. It took some time to materialize, but by integrating the companies, the business is now headed in a much better direction than where it was at the time of the sale.The key titles - many of which had flattened out in circulation - are doing very well. Investments are being made to revitalize and sustain some of the beloved brands that otherwise might have faded. And the affinity-based strategy of supporting the Food / Entertaining and Home / Garden titles with specialized divisions, related assets and integrated marketing, is clearly designed to give the Reiman titles a great chance for a long and successful future!Change isn't easy, but it is necessary in this rapidly evolving media landscape. We will continue to look for smart ways to bring the best content to our readers. They will ultimately decide if their interests are being served.
Ellen MorgensternDirector, Public RelationsReader's Digest Association


And, if you are still with me, Bob's respond to Ellen:

Ellen: I re-posted that in innocence without an agenda. On Samir's site it was listed as a recent November release and appeared new. While on the road, I checked my database as best as I could, and, although it sounded familiar, I couldn't find that I had sent it out before. Mea culpa.

As you might expect I am an epicenter of an enormous amount of information and industry-wide emails. I have received dozens and dozens of emails on and about RDA, Ripplewood and Reiman. My guess is that it was this information overload that made me think that Samir's article was new paralleling most the letters I have received. I will gladly write an editorial correction if you would like or empower you to write a response to my readership.
- Bob Sacks

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Reiman, Ripplewood, and RJ Reynolds

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Reiman, Ripplewood, and RJ Reynolds
www.bosacks.com


Re: The Sell: Why You Need Fanboys, by Andrew Ettinger
Ettinger's article on branding was very interesting, but it seemed to me as if he missed an important point.

It's a common mistake to think that the sole purpose of branding is to increase sales. That's true, of course, but it's only half the story. Well-built brands are able to charge a premium price.

It's interesting that given the choice of two distilleries to visit, Jim Beam and Maker's Mark, Ettinger turned to the more expensive brand. This sort of reinforces the axiom that in any given market the leading publication can (and should) charge higher CPMs.

Give him credit. Many of us in this industry have been driven to drink but he's the only person I know who got an article out the experience.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

RE: BoSacks Speaks Out: Mea Culpa on RDA, Reiman and Ripplewood.
>> The writing has been on the wall for some time that a "no advertising" model no longer works in this day and age. <<

Has anyone told Cooks Illustrated or Consumer Reports or Consumer Digest? Producers of expensive subscription-only special interest newsletters? Woodworking Magazine? Public broadcasting? Have the people at RD tried searching online for the terms magazine and "we accept no advertising"? If they mean that a no-advertising model won't work for the specific way they want to do business, that might be true. But to assume that there are no ways of making this work is foolish.
(Submitted by a Writer)


RE: BoSacks Speaks Out: Mea Culpa on RDA, Reiman and Ripplewood.
Bob: All the nice responses and responses to responses are interesting. At the end of the day, the jury is still out. Let's wait and see what the vote is from the only people in the equation who count. They (the Reiman subscribers) are the ones who eventually pay all of our collective salaries, and their decision is final, and binding. Looking forward to your next update.
(Submitted by a Senior Director of Mfg & Dst)


RE: BoSacks Speaks Out: Mea Culpa on RDA, Reiman and Ripplewood.
Maybe more companies should directly engage and respond to your's and our rants and raves about what is happening in the industry. I can only see good things from this type of exchange. Keep the content flowing Bob!
(Submitted by a Production Director)


RE: BoSacks Speaks Out: Mea Culpa on RDA, Reiman and Ripplewood.
This is just another example of Wall Street autocrats and pillagers, buying for less and selling for more. It is their right and privilege to do so. It is part of the American dream and current style of doing business, but as a life long publisher it sickens me. I have been in the business for 40 years, publishing my own titles for 30 years. I too, might sell my business to Ripplewood, and they might buy it. But I would cringe at the devastation I would leave in my wake. We make a tidy profit here with several very popular titles. I wonder what Roy Reiman is thinking now? I wonder what advice he would give to me and other similar publishers?

Re; RJ Reynolds to stop print ads next year
Bo: When I joined min 20 years ago, tobacco was a key magazine ad category, ranking just below automotive and direct response. And the Magazine Publishers of America was adamant about protecting tobacco ads from regulation. (Rep. Henry Waxman/D.-Calif. was the chief protagonist.)

Now, it is almost nonexistent, so the news of R.J. Reynolds halting print advertising barely raises a peep.
(Submitted by an Unknown Professional)

Re; RJ Reynolds to stop print ads next year
Let's call the tobacco industry giants what they are - Merchants of Death. And let's also call the publishers who have accepted the money for print ads promoting smoking to their young and impressionable potential customers what THEY are - accomplices to the Grim Reaper. Publisher's and Ad Sales Directors are all interested in one thing, and one thing only, and it ain't ethics! (Full disclosure - I'm a non smoker, and have been since my grandfather died at age 55 of lung cancer after having smoked two packs of Lucky Strikes a day for his last 40 years.)
(Submitted by a Senior Director of Manufacturing)


Re; RJ Reynolds to stop print ads next year
Aha, another good reason for me to NEVER have accepted cigarette ads in the first place!
(Submitted by a Multi-title Publisher)

Google and Other People's Content

Google and Other People's Content
It sticks ads all over. But to maintain growth, it may need to own the places it puts them
BY Jon Fine
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_49/b4061083.htm

The eternal story line in media is "Google is moving into [fill in the blank]." In recent weeks, Google announced its Android operating system for mobile phones and its OpenSocial standard, which will link applications across major social-networking sites, so long as (for now, at least) they're not named Facebook. As several blogs discovered, in November the company filed a patent application for a Google magazine of sorts, which would allow users to collate Web content around which Google would wrap targeted ads. It's also launching a job ads initiative.

All of which multiplies the number of arenas into which Google can sell advertising, which provides 99% of its revenue. The formula is familiar: Sell ads, in many cases around content Google doesn't own; turn over the bulk of that revenue to the owner of the content; repeat until the end of time.

Google's revenues almost tripled, to $11.8 billion, in the first nine months of '07, so it's hard to argue with its approach. But, really, how long can this go on? Not even the most ardent Google apologist claims its profits will balloon by the billion forever. Some perched in lofty places throughout the media biosphere advance a quietly radical notion: Google will start buying content companies. In fact, they say, Google will have no choice.

EYEBALL HUNTERS
This doesn't happen today or tomorrow but somewhere down the road, as the torrid growth tails off. The reason is AdSense, Google's business that runs ads around others' content and pays the owners the bulk of related revenues. (For the first three quarters of 2007, AdSense accounted for 35% of Google's gross revenues.) This business is less profitable than AdWords, which runs targeted ads around Google's search results. And there are indicators that gap will widen. The costs for eyeballs will only go up as the other big online ad network competitors-Microsoft , Yahoo! , and AOL -all tussle to lock up sites that generate lots of quality traffic, of which there are a limited number. (For an online ad network, more traffic equals more data equals better targeting equals more money. Microsoft's $240 million bought only 1.6% of Facebook, but it kept that traffic from Google.) Google's traffic acquisition costs-which include fees paid to content players-come to almost 84% of its AdSense revenues in the third quarter.

Owning some high-traffic sites, however, does away with revenue splits and immediately boosts profit.

Remember that "content" doesn't have to mean "television network." "Content" can simply be "information you sell ads around." It would be insane for Google to buy New York Times Co. a cost-intensive entity operating in a severely stressed sector. It may not be insane for Google to load up on properties like Landmark Communications' Weather Channel-or, better, the competing Web site Weather Underground, which would be cheaper. That's info everyone wants, and creating it doesn't require an army of reporters and producers.

This idea, of course, runs wholly counter to Google's reigning ethos. Its stated goal is to organize the world's information, not buy it. Google-ites will tell you the culture is allergic to owning content. And companies begun, and defined, by programmers have struggled to navigate the byways of media, as many failed initiatives from AOL and Microsoft attest. (Don't recall Microsoft's Sidewalk online city guides? You're not alone.) Google intimates also say that the company's we'll-partner-with-everyone approach would be hurt by owning content, given the incentives to favor what one owns.

But Google already owns sites traditional media outlets view as rivals, like Google News and YouTube , and few partners have fled. As long as Google's ad network delivers the goods, traditional players won't opt out. (Giving up a few million dollars a year from Google is not an option these days.) Google's defenders say it's more likely to invent new lines of business, as it's trying to do with Android and OpenSocial, among others, to stoke growth. But as generations of past companies have discovered, there comes a time when it's easier to buy a way out of a bind than to invent one.

RJ Reynolds to stop print ads next year

RJ Reynolds to stop print ads next year
By JOCELYN NOVECK, AP National Writer


The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has been under intense pressure from anti-smoking groups and members of Congress over print ads for its cigarettes, said Tuesday it would not advertise its brands in newspapers or consumer magazines next year.

The company had been criticized sharply for both its colorful and feminine Camel No. 9 ads, which appeared in fashion magazines and were seen as cynically aimed at young women, and also for a recent ad in Rolling Stone.

In that ad, four pages of Camel cigarette ads bookended Rolling Stone's own material on independent rock music, which was presented in a cartoon-like format. That angered anti-smoking advocates, who said it appeared the whole thing was a Camel ad - and that it recalled the old "Joe Camel" cartoons that were banned because they appeared aimed at children.

R.J. Reynolds spokeswoman Jan Smith said the decision, first reported Tuesday in the Winston-Salem Journal, had been made sometime before October and was unrelated to the Rolling Stone controversy.

In a telephone interview, Smith called the move "an effort by the company to enhance and sharpen the effectiveness and efficiency of its marketing programs." She did, however, say the company had taken into account, at least in part, the protests over the Camel No. 9 ads.

"Obviously tobacco industry issues are in mind with every decision we make," Smith said. "A result of this is there should be less controversy over cigarette advertising in magazines and newspapers, because we won't be doing it."

The Washington-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has long protested the Camel ads, called the company's decision "more a strategy to deflect criticism than a real change in marketing."

Matthew Myers, president of the group, said it was unfortunate that R.J. Reynolds had not committed to permanently stop print advertising. Smith said the company, based in Winston-Salem, N.C., would make decisions about future years at a later time.

Myers also said the company has far to go to curtail egregious marketing practices, which include promotions at bars and nightclubs.

"What they've done is just to limit the ads that have prompted the fiercest criticism, because they are the most visible," Myers said in a telephone interview. He noted the company is still engaging in direct mail advertising, heavy promotion at retail outlets, and price promotion "for the brands kids like most."

The Camel No. 9 ads, launched early this year, appear on thick, shiny paper in fuchsia or teal and are adorned with images of roses and lace. A group of Congress members, led by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., have been urging women's magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Vogue and Glamour to stop accepting the ads, saying they threaten the health of the teenagers and young women who form a large part of their readership.

Capps on Tuesday called the Reynolds decision a "token concession" that was "a day late and a dollar short."

In fact, the print ads account for only a tiny portion of what the tobacco industry spends on marketing. But they've been notable because they often appear in magazines side by side with articles promoting women's health.

Print ads for tobacco are banned in a number of countries, including throughout Europe, but legal in the United States. Tobacco advertising was banned from radio and TV long ago, and more recently from billboards.

A major tobacco report issued earlier this year by the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that print ads be restricted to black and white text only - no images.

A number of magazines refuse to accept tobacco ads. A few are Self, Men's Health and Money, according to the Tobacco-Free Periodicals Project.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Paper Costs Leaves Publishers Shuddering

Expected Rise in Paper Costs Leaves Publishers Shuddering
Mags Could Be Paying 25% More Next Year Due to Mergers in Pulp Biz
By Nat Ives
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=122187

Magazine publishers are already facing way too many rising costs: technology investments, postage, editors both diva and deserving. But the seemingly mundane budget line for glossy paper is suddenly the one everyone is worried about.

Welcome to our hell, publishers said last week.

"I frankly became more of a quasi-expert than I would want to be, only out of necessity," said John P. Loughlin, exec VP-general manager at Hearst Magazines.

The weakness of the American dollar is increasingly restricting publishers' overseas options.

Seller's market
More worrisome, paper seems to be emerging from a competitive era of cyclically rising and falling prices. This year already has seen increases implemented and announced. Now structural changes, including mergers and a growing role for aggressive private equity, look likely to drive prices up next year by another 20% to 25%, Mr. Loughlin said.

The industry hasn't seen a spike like that since 1995, when announced increases led to a brief run on the paper market that echoed Dutch Tulip Mania. This isn't spare change, either: Paper comprises some 15%-20% of publishers' costs, Mr. Loughlin estimated. One big publisher said it's still unclear how big a hit is bearing down. "We're still examining what we believe specifics amount to, and whether there are benefits to our scale," an executive there said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Planning the right strategic response is complicated by that fact that visibility, beyond such rough projections, remains limited. Paper manufacturers aren't too helpful on this score. A spokesman for AbitibiBowater, the result of an October merger and now the third-largest publicly traded paper company in North America, declined to discuss publishers' fears. "We cannot speculate on pricing on a going-forward basis," he said.

A spokeswoman for NewPage, which hopes to close on the acquisition of Stora Enso's North American operations by the first quarter, did not respond to a voicemail and an e-mail seeking comment Nov. 21.

Hearst ready
Mr. Loughlin said Hearst would get by. The company increased cover and subscription pricing on many of its magazines this year and is considering a couple more hikes next year. "We have tried to be thoughtful about our structure in the good years and in the tough years relative to paper prices," he said. "Nobody wants to be here, but frankly we're in a good position in that we've managed our costs and don't have to change the physical specs on the magazines."

The other obvious recourse, trying to pass costs along to advertisers, just won't work well enough for everyone, said Malcolm Campbell, publisher of Spin. "It's going to put some people out of business," he said.

And he didn't just mean the indies. "Don't kid yourself," he said. "There are a lot of large-publishing-company old titles that are very marginal anyway. You're going to see a lot of icons going down if paper prices go up that much."

Spin, he said, will continue just fine in print, even without exploring options like switching to cheaper paper stock or reducing the magazine's size. "There may be some adjustments," he said. "I don't think we're going to go that route. We'll find other ways."

-----------------------------------------------

Paper prices "must double" says M-real chiefBY William Mitting, PrintWeek

http://www.printweek.com/paper/news/768484/Paper-prices-must-double-says-M-real-chief/

Paper prices must double to make the paper industry economically and environmentally sustainable, Andrew Gun­man, regional director of paper manufacturer M-real, has warned.

Speaking at the annual PPA Magazine Conference at London's Millennium Hotel last week, Gunman said the industry had to "pay the right price" for paper to save the environment and secure its future.

"Increased paper costs would reduce waste and force the industry to consume less," he said. "The paper industry needs more money to build a sustainable future."

Gunman added that, while most publishers do not insist on the environmentally friendly FSC certified paper, there has been increased demand from large retailers such as Sainsbury's.

"We have seen a 100% increase in demand for FSC paper in 2007 which is pushing up prices," he added.
Bemoaning the cheap price of paper in Europe, Gunman said the supply and demand mismatch was the fault of the paper industry, which had sold too cheaply.
He added that the low prices were destroying communities across Europe as paper mills are forced out of business.

Gunman's comments will be met with concern among the printing industry which is already struggling with increased paper prices.

One industry insider said that paper-based marketing and information communication has to stand up economically against other delivery channels. As paper prices increase, it makes these other channels more viable, threatening the industry.

In 2006, the dollar price of softwood kraft pulp increased by 22%, a cost which was passed onto printers.

Digital Divide

Digital Divide


Having learned to love the Web, former print editors urge magazines to carve out stronger online identities
Mark Golin, editor of People.com, looks back with some humor on the early days of his Web career in the late '90s. He had proudly created some new features for Rodale's Prevention.com, only to discover people weren't clicking on them. "They were just beautiful looking," he recalled. "God help anyone trying to figure out how to use it."

For Golin, who spent much of his career in magazines including stints as editor of Maxim and Details before making the jump to the digital space seven years ago, the episode made him realize the complexity of building a successful site, with all the visual cues that are needed to keep users engaged and entertained.

"One of the immediate things that hit me is how much more complex production online can be," Golin said. "Content packages are planned months in advance. You almost start to think about a game of three-dimensional chess."

And while most magazine publishers now realize they have a bright future online, he and other former print editors agree that many of them have fallen short in adapting their magazines to one of the biggest threats -if not the biggest threat-to their existence.
To make their brands succeed online, magazine editors need to rethink practices and assumptions that are suited to print, these former print editors say.

"I think they need to think about the Web as a completely different animal," said Michael Caruso, a former editor of Men's Journal and Details who founded The Daily Tube, a site that trolls the Web for the best new videos.



Traditions that have made print magazines strong can be a liability online, former print editors said.
Given the interactive nature of the Web, magazines, with their "experts telling a large audience what to think and what's new," have a diminishing role to play, Caruso said.

Keith Blanchard, onetime editor of Maxim who worked on the sites of Wenner Media's Rolling Stone, Us Weekly and Men's Journal, sees print brands struggling to be responsible and authentic at the same time. "Perez Hilton was able to come up out of nowhere because he didn't care about the legality of what he was doing," pointed out Blanchard, now vp, director of programming at videogame maker Kuma Games.

Online, it's content that matters, not the source, he continued. "Newsweek, Time, don't mean anything, but Justin Fox does," he said, referring to Time's business and economics columnist. "I don't think people are very brand-loyal online."

Blanchard and others say too often magazine sites offer no unique value, have loads of information that's poorly organized and too closely mimic their print counterparts. They urged magazines to carve out stronger identities online.

One way is to recognize that sites don't have to mirror print editions, Golin said, noting that People.com is more celebrity-oriented than its print counterpart.

"I think the main thing is for them to have a very clear mission statement," he said. "What is the need on the part of the user that you're fulfilling? I see a lot of magazine Web sites where I don't know why I've come here, I don't know why I'd come here regularly."

Given the Web's user-directed nature, Blanchard suggested magazines' sites do more to let visitors customize their experience, by geography or other factors.

Since making the jump to online, these digital denizens said they've had to adjust to a culture of heightened speed, intensity and technological change.

"The culture is a lot more casual, the hierarchy is a lot more fluid," said Jimmy Jellinek, who was replaced as editor of Maxim after its recent ownership change and is now consulting at Heavy.com, an entertainment site geared to young men. "There's not the sense of power derived from a masthead. But at the same time, there's pressure to grow profit. There is a constant intensity because the Web is constantly changing. Here, you're working on a day-to-day basis. You constantly have to be plugged in."

While digital defectors don't seem eager to return to print, they still see strong value in the service, long reads and escapism it provides. Said Jellinek, "The one thing the Internet doesn't do is provide context. You get instant information, but it's not analysis."

Price hikes hit Bauer titles

The once-seemingly unstoppable celebrity weekly category is showing more signs its growth is peaking. It started with Wenner Media's Us Weekly and Northern & Shell's OK! missing rate bases on multiple issues in the first half of '07, followed by American Media's Star cutting its rate base to 1.35 million in July, from 1.5 million.

Now, in the two weeks since its price increased by $1 to $2.99, In Touch Weekly's single-copy sales were at least 25 percent below their 1.3 million average for the first half of 2007, according to preliminary sales estimates provided by three industry sources. At sibling Bauer Publishing title Life & Style Weekly, which also raised its price by $1 to $2.99, single-copy sales were down at least 10 percent from its first-half average sales of 744,294, per the sources' estimates.

To be fair, two weeks is a small amount of time to determine whether or not a price increase has a long-term impact on sales, which can be affected by a host of factors. Fall is generally a slow time for celebrity weekly newsstand sales, for example. According to an industry rule of thumb, a title can expect a percentage decline in newsstand sales equal to half the cover price's percentage increase, however.

Cover prices have been trending up this year across the celebrity category, but Bauer's price increases were seen as especially risky because of the 50 percent hike and the company's reliance on low cover prices to support its newsstand growth. Ian Scott, president of Bauer advertising sales, would not confirm or comment on the latest newsstand sales, but did say Bauer would continue its record of overdelivering on rate base. "That's what we've done in the past and that's what we're committed to doing in the future," Scott said.

Meantime, newsstand sales of other celeb weeklies have stayed relatively even, according to source estimates. If anything, Dave Leckey, executive vp, consumer marketing of American Media and publisher of Star, noted, "I think [the Bauer price increase has] benefitted us."

Ads Keep Spreading, but Are Consumers Immune?

Ads Keep Spreading, but Are Consumers Immune?
Advertiser Encroachment on All Forms of Media May Well Wind Up Backfiring
By Brian Steinberg
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=122092

People who live near train lines find ways to adjust to the noise outside their windows. The first time a train passes, they can't help but notice it. But by the 10th or 20th time, they've figured out how to ignore it. Consumers have begun to treat encroaching advertising just like those trains.

Ads surface on the bottom third of the TV screen while a program airs, break up the flow of articles in a newspaper or stick out of the binding of a magazine. This constant knock-knock-knock against the collective consumer noggin once spurred cries of protest. No longer. "The tolerance bar has gone way up," said Dorian Sweet, executive creative director at Omnicom Group's Tribal DDB.

No safe haven

In part, that's due to people growing accustomed to constant interruption online. Thanks to the web, "consumers are becoming more desensitized," said John Moore, senior VP-director of ideas and innovation at Interpublic Group's Mullen. "They almost expect no place to be sacrosanct anymore."

Consumers may be resigned to this constant barrage, but is it just training them to tune out ad messages? Online, publishers and advertisers can mix content and commercialism as they like because, ultimately, surfers can click elsewhere. On TV and in print, that isn't always the case, particularly as ads are laced further into the content people want to enjoy.

TV screens have long been filled with egregious promos for other shows on the same network, but new techniques take the concept further. During a recent "Heroes" episode, NBC unfurled a "banner" promotion at the bottom of the screen -- in the middle of a scene -- for the film "American Gangster," something that does not run on its own air. Sibling cable outlet Bravo is gearing up to test an L-shaped bar onscreen that could be used to deliver ad messages.

CW's "Gossip Girl" recently featured the Verizon Wireless logo rising up from the bottom of the screen. Time Warner's TBS has run an on-screen bar mentioning Chrysler during "House of Payne." Viacom plans to place what it calls "commercial squeezes" at the bottom of screens on some MTV Networks channels, the company revealed in a recent investor conference call.

The new norm

Print, too, is looking crowded. Magazine bindings are jammed with discs, heavy-paper displays known as "spectaculars" and foldouts that play music. More newspapers are dressing their front pages and section fronts with advertising. Others allow characters from "Bee Movie" to show up in their arts listings. These ads "are becoming the norm," said Roger Black, a designer who has helped revamp the look of many popular magazines. Publishers once known for their buttoned-down demeanor "will allow things they didn't use to allow." Just last week, The New Yorker ran a two-page spread for Lexus that pictured its new hybrid car scattering leaves as it drove by. The ad then continued throughout the issue in the form of a slew of fake leaves stuck over cartoons by New Yorker artists created specifically for Lexus.

A look at any Facebook home page gives an indication of where media design is headed. Ostensibly filled with individual "news feed" bulletins about how friends are passing their time, the pages also contain a banner ad and promotions in the feed itself. On some news websites, everything is sponsored -- from web searches to formatting a page for printing -- with promotions just inches from editorial content. Online-video sites YouTube and Hulu are making use of clickable "overlay" ads that appear briefly at the bottom of a selection.

That design is spreading to mainstream venues. TV has become more interactive, so couch potatoes are growing accustomed to onscreen menus. Magazines are embracing the notion of surrounding a main feature with tidbits tucked away in the margins.

Taking it all in

"The way people behave in their use of media has changed. They are used to having a lot more stuff" in front of them, said Jan Leth, vice chairman of global digital creative at WPP Group's Ogilvy. More consumers are used to multitasking" and seeing multiple messages or pieces of entertainment at any given moment.

But squeezing more ads into a finite space is bound to have repercussions. "It's distracting. It's frustrating, and you feel helpless," said Robert Weissman, managing director of Commercial Alert, a nonprofit that monitors advertising's ongoing creep. Stuffing irrelevant promotion into a treasured piece of entertainment can also render the content less entertaining.

One other pitfall: Consumers are bound to grow resistant to marketing's new strain. "It's like noise on the streets of Manhattan," Mr. Black said. "You just get used to it, in which case you just have to make it noisier."

Troubling Case of Readers' Block

Troubling Case of Readers' Block
Citing Decline Among Older Kids, NEA Report Warns of Dire Effects
By Bob Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer

Americans are reading less and their reading proficiency is declining at troubling rates, according to a report that the National Endowment for the Arts will issue today. The trend is particularly strong among older teens and young adults, and if it is not reversed, the NEA report suggests, it will have a profound negative effect on the nation's economic and civic future.

"This is really alarming data," said NEA Chairman Dana Gioia. "Luckily, we still have an opportunity to address it, but if we wait 10, 20 years, I think it may be too late."

Titled "To Read or Not to Read," the report is a significant expansion of the NEA's widely cited 2004 study, "Reading at Risk." The NEA based that earlier study exclusively on data from its own arts surveys, and as a result, that analysis focused mainly on so-called literary reading -- novels, stories, plays and poems. This led some critics to downplay its implications.

The new report assembles much more data, drawing on large-scale studies done by other government agencies (such as the Department of Education) and by non-government organizations. These studies tend to use broader definitions of reading, said Sunil Iyengar, the NEA's director of research and analysis, with many looking at "all kinds of reading," a category that includes reading done online.

The story the numbers tell, Gioia said, can be summed up in about four sentences:

"We are doing a better job of teaching kids to read in elementary school. But once they enter adolescence, they fall victim to a general culture which does not encourage or reinforce reading. Because these people then read less, they read less well. Because they read less well, they do more poorly in school, in the job market and in civic life."

Particularly striking, Gioia and Iyengar both said, are the declines that occur between age 9 and age 17 in reading proficiency scores and time spent reading.

The percentage of 9-year-olds who say they "read almost every day for fun," the NEA report notes, rose slightly, from 53 percent to 54 percent, between 1984 and 2004. During roughly the same time period, average reading scores for 9-year-olds rose sharply. But the percentage of 17-year-olds reading almost every day for fun dropped from 31 percent in 1984 to 22 percent in 2004, with average reading scores showing steady declines.

Iyengar emphasized that the NEA's data can show correlations but cannot prove a causal relationship between reading decline and, say, the proliferation of electronic media. Asked what he personally made of the late-teenage numbers, however, he offered a scenario likely to sound familiar to parents and educators.

"When you hit adolescence," Iyengar said, "there's generally less parental control." Peer pressure gets much stronger, and the culture offers "numerous distractions away from reading."

The NEA reports that in 2006, 15-to-24-year-olds spent just 7 to 10 minutes a day voluntarily reading anything at all. It also notes that between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of college graduates who tested as "proficient in reading prose" declined from 40 percent to 31 percent.

In addition to presenting data on how much and how well Americans read, Iyengar said, the NEA set out to address the "so what?" question often asked in the wake of its earlier report.

Here is some of what it found:

Thirty-eight percent of employers rate high school graduates as "deficient" in reading comprehension, while 72 percent rate them deficient in writing. Good reading skills correlate strongly with higher earnings and more job opportunities. Reading skills also correlate with increased voting, volunteerism, charity work, attendance at cultural events and even exercising and playing sports.

"This is not a study about literary reading," Gioia said. It's a study about reading of any sort and "what the consequences of doing it well or doing it badly are." In an increasingly competitive world, the consequences of doing it badly include "economic decline."

Among the NEA study's limitations is its lack of specific data about online reading, a subject on which, Gioia said, research is not yet strong.

University of Maryland English professor Matthew Kirschenbaum, whose academic interests include electronic literature, organized a forum to discuss the 2004 NEA report. That report's weakness, Kirschenbaum said in an interview last week, was that it didn't account for "the different ways in which we read."

Kirschenbaum had not seen the new report. After hearing a brief summary, however, he didn't sound inclined to change his mind. "The fact that we don't read the same way that we read 50 or 200 years ago," he said, is not necessarily "symptomatic of a general cultural decline."

Gioia disagreed.

"The Internet is the most powerful informational tool ever developed by humanity, except perhaps the phonetic alphabet," he said. "But it does not seem to nourish the sustained, linear attention" that traditional print media do.

Last Friday, Gioia and Iyengar previewed "To Read or Not to Read" for a group of perhaps 50 publishers, editors and other interested parties gathered at the Mercantile Library in New York.

"It was a sobering presentation," said Knopf publicity director Paul Bogaards, who attended with Knopf Editor in Chief Sonny Mehta. Publishers have long been aware of negative reading trends, Bogaards said, but "haven't had the data."

"The response was one of concern," said Fordham University marketing professor Albert Greco, a publishing industry expert who was also at the NEA presentation. "Maybe we should be thrilled that half of the people are still reading," Greco added, "but this is a graying market."

HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman described herself as "skeptical but not dismissive" of the NEA's analysis.

Her company is "very much into the digital side of the business," Friedman said, and when it comes to a customer's choice of format, "I don't care. Reading is reading." She pointed to the data on young children's reading as a positive, noting that "we're seeing great growth in our children's business."

The NEA report comes without recommendations. This choice was deliberate, Gioia said, because "no one institution" can solve the reading problem alone.

"What we're trying to do is say: These are the facts. This is a framework to understand the issues. Let's talk about it," Gioia said. And the key question is: What are the consequences if America becomes "a nation in which reading is a minority activity?"

Game News in a Duel of Print and Online

Game News in a Duel of Print and Online
By CATE DOTY

Noel Goodman subscribes to three video game magazines, but he wants information faster than the magazines can reach his mailbox.

"I can find out on the Internet information that won't be in magazines for another month," said Mr. Goodman, a 30-year-old electrician in Newport News, Va., who took Halloween off to play video games. The magazines, he said, are "always going to lose when it comes down to content. I can get everything online."

While video game magazine publishers beg to differ, that is precisely their challenge - retaining readers as the Internet grabs their audience and advertisers. Why wait for a monthly mailing when the Web has fresh game reviews, articles and tips on how to beat the games?

In the last few months, the two biggest publishers - Ziff Davis Media and Future US, which control most of the major game magazines in the United States - have been trying to tip the balance back in their favor.

The two companies have been bulking up their online content, trying to develop a symbiotic relationship. Their magazines offer portability and visual power, and their Web sites provide interactive features and nonstop information flow.

"If information is all that we require, the Web wins. Game over," said Simon Cox, the vice president for content at Ziff Davis Media's game group, which includes Electronic Gaming Monthly, a print magazine, and the 1UP Network, an online gaming portal. "But people want content and perspective."

To keep print subscribers, Ziff Davis aims to offer better writing and reporting than is available from competitors' Web sites, as well as striking visuals. Ziff Davis is also embracing the financial power of the special issue: a September issue that came out before the release of the blockbuster game Halo 3 for the Xbox 360 from Microsoft included a 19-page feature section.

"We've integrated our organization, and print is an important part of the proposition," said Jason Young, the chief executive of Ziff Davis. He added that despite the problems in the business, the company plans to keep its game titles. "Certainly, peeling off individual pieces is not part of our strategy at this time," he said.

Mr. Cox said Ziff Davis is continuing a strategy that tries to bounce the reader back and forth between its magazines and its Web sites. "Users can't get enough information about some of these games," Mr. Cox said. "You're just providing different ways of getting into the game."

According to company reports, Ziff Davis's digital revenue increased by 14 percent in the second quarter over the same period last year, but revenue for the game group fell by more than $3 million.

And though the 1UP Network was the ninth most-visited gaming Web site in September, with nearly 3.1 million unique visitors, it drew less than half of the 8.1 million people who went to Ign.com, a game site owned by News Corporation, according to ComScore, a company that measures Web traffic. The main online site of Future US, Gamesradar.com, had 4.9 million unique visitors.

Jonathan Simpson-Bint, the publisher of Future US, said that his company also focuses on special issues for releases of new game systems like Wii, which come with high-quality visuals and a high newsstand price.

Given the competition from the Internet, "we've had to be more ingenious about the way we've approached it," Mr. Simpson-Bint said.

Future US's game magazines earned $46 million in 2006, a $4.8 million drop from 2005, according to company reports. The circulation for PC Gamer, a leading magazine from Future US, shrank to 210,369 this year from 300,271 in 2003, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Magazine publishers say that readers want longer features and in-depth articles as a counterpoint to the short, bloglike pieces they find online. But Kyle Orland, a freelance journalist who writes a media coverage column for Gamedaily.com, wondered if that strategy was working, saying that when a large feature is published, it doesn't get read.

"Attention spans are just getting so small that readers don't know what they want," Mr. Orland said.

But game players are also suspicious of publications' ties to the game publishers they write about, said David Gornoski, the editor of a Web site called Vgmwatch.com. "We're seeing situations where publishers are dangling exclusive stories in front of publications in exchange for scores for their products," Mr. Gornoski wrote in an e-mail message.

Still, some longtime players still find the magazines useful. "I like reading in print because I can carry it around with me if I don't have Internet access," said Alexandria Velez, 31, a student in information technology from Staten Island. "Wherever I go, I can carry a magazine."

Mr. Simpson-Bint of Future US said that the Internet was not the only drag on the revenues of game magazines. Another factor, he said, was the mercurial nature of the games market itself, where a slowdown automatically means a drop in advertising.

"It's a really tightly linked ecosystem," he said. "The fortunes of the magazines are very profoundly linked to the fortunes of the hardware platforms."

BoSacks Speaks Out: On why?, On Ripplewood, and Publishing Biz

BoSacks Speaks Out: On why?, On Ripplewood, and Publishing Biz Plans.
www.bosacks.com

Re: Advertising
I keep reading that advertising is fleeing print media and going to the Web.
But when I read a magazine or a newspaper, I can't help but notice some of
the advertising, and even appreciate the often beautiful photography, while
I look at the Web every day and I never see an ad because I never click on
them, and as for pop-ups, I cannot resist the temptation to click on 'skip
this ad'. A website is not a billboard: if the ads become so intrusive that
they get in the way of what I want to see, I will stop visiting that site.

So what's going to happen to advertising? I've always been convinced that
most advertising is a waste of money anyway; do some people actually look at
ads for pleasure? Or is it all going to go kerflop?
(Submitted by a Retired writer)

Re: Perspective on Consumer Magazine Circ Levels-First-Half 2007
All I have to say is all of them are still giving away subscriptions at a fraction of the cost of printing and mailing. It still is a joke to me how this works. The advertisers have to be stupid to buy into this farce.
(Submitted by a Paper Person)

RE: Bringing down the house of Reiman . . . one "ripple" at a time
Interesting article. There is middle ground: Taunton Press is an example. They sell advertising, but only endemic advertising. In addition, it is kept out of the editorial well so as not to intrude on the content. This approach garners additional revenue for circulation-driven magazines with out compromising the content value of the publication: because of the selective aspect, the ads become, in effect, an extension of editorial value to the customer.
When I worked there years ago, something like 95% of subscribers claimed to keep every issue of the magazine. A lower but similar percentage (maybe 91%) viewed advertising as a significant and positive component of the magazine's value to them. These statistics and commentary in focus groups made clear that the customers recognized what Taunton's policy was all about, and that it benefited both subscribers and the company.
(Submitted by a Publisher)


RE: Bringing down the house of Reiman . . . one "ripple" at a time
. . . It's sad when organizations can't see the beauty and uniqueness of something and feel they have to change it to be like everything else.
I believe there have been some horror/sci-fi movies that dealt with this concept and I don't remember any of them ending well.
Just think, we could see Swarm of Ads, Revenge of the Copy Clones, Return of the Magazine Zombies, Invasion of the Magazine Snatchers,

Hopefully someone will wake up and realize what they are doing before its too late.
(for the sake of full disclosure, my wife subscibes to Taste of Home and we buy the Taste of Home specials from the newstand)
(Submitted by a Purchasing Manager)

RE: Bringing down the house of Reiman . . . one "ripple" at a time
Oh No! There's one ad in the book!! I'm not renewing!! Is this really an issue, a few ad's in the book to help the offset rising postal and paper costs? It's not like they're changing the whole format of the book we're talking about a few ad pages here. Watch out the sky is falling!!!
(Submitted by Senior Paper Director)


Re: The Magazine Format is not a Business Model . . . An answer for Jeff Jarvis:
Great Article! Rex is right on the money (though not 40 million of it) This is the first time I have heard someone divest the magazine format from the business model in this manner. It helps provide greater clarity and insight into thinking how publishers can improve their business model, regardless of what level they function at. The same premise applies to book publishing. I have a friend who recently self-published a high-production coffee-table garden book. He is selling in person at home show appearances and through his website. 2,500 books to sell and every sale is important. He sells 20 per day at the shows, more on his website, was picked up for 50 as upcoming corporate gifts, some at book signing appearances, etc . . . the entrepreneurial spirit finds a way . . . and its very refreshing to see it in action.
(Submitted by a consulting company President)


Re: Your Next Publishing Business Plan . . .
Your recent article in Publishing Executive raises some excellent questions on the issue of how (or whether) the next generation reads. As you suggest, the answers depend as much on the direction of our schools as on the direction of the publishing industry.

The portion of the U.S. population that's illiterate is probably no larger today than it was in the middle of the last century, but it's a certainty that there are more media choices now than there were fifty years ago . . . and that shrill, superficial, and shallow content has grown a lot faster than erudition.

As H. L. Mencken said, nobody ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American public. It's been true since the birth of print that the least challenging media attract the largest audiences.

But demand drives supply. If, to use your phrase, we've created a generation of instant gratification seekers, the harm was done in our schools and homes, not in publishing companies. We can't reasonably blame the media for making popular products.

Though they hardly qualify as answers, I have a few thoughts on your questions.

First, when it comes to media, desire for instant gratification reflects the absence of critical thinking. It would be very much to our benefit as a society if schools focused more on teaching students how to think critically. One result might be reduced demand for shallow and superficial media.

Second, if there's a single subject that we ought to add to the school curriculum, it's media studies. I'm continually astonished that students aren't taught about the role of commerce in media, about the relationship between advertising and content, about how advertising works and the effects it can have, about vested interests, or any of the dozens of important related issues about a phenomenon that dominates their lives.

Maybe we could find a few extra minutes for this significant subject by eliminating gratuitous award ceremonies.

If increasing numbers of young people are satisfied with "bite-size" media and want instant gratification in content, it's not the result of change in the media or technology. It's the result of schools that are not fully serving our children, and parents who seem oblivious that their children are being shortchanged. For every teenager who doesn't read books there are two parents who didn't read to their child.

Finally, it's indisputable that the invention of printing was an event that changed history in many dramatic ways. But to think that digital technology will have anything close to the same effect on society is a bit far-fetched.

People made lofty and extravagant claims for radio and television, too, back in the day, most of which never bore fruit. I'd love to see some credible, empirical evidence that computers have improved the overall productivity of American business in the past 20 years . . . or that computer-aided education has made students smarter. . . or that the Internet has improved the quality of journalism. I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exist, just that we shouldn't take these things as articles of faith.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: Your Next Publishing Business Plan . . .
The question you pose is not new. I remember hearing the same argument as a child, but instead of Playstations, TiVo, the web, PDA's, the iPod, 24/7 smart cell phone as the culprits, it was three channels of television; four when PBS made it through the airwaves. I read little as a teen, but after finishing school and starting life in the real world, I quickly learned reading was a necessary to advance my career. I suspect many others experienced the same revelation since my demographic is now considered the top readers.

The moral is, people, as a demographic, do not read during the years they are not focused on a career. Many studies support this theory, showing the older demographic does not read as much as those in the middle of their career. These are the same people who said my generation did not read.
(Submitted by a Printer)

Magazines, Newspapers May Benefit from Writer's Strike

Magazines, Newspapers May Benefit from Writer's Strike
MindShare Survey: Consumers Plan to Change Viewing Habits
By Brian Steinberg
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=122076

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- A prolonged writers' strike could send regular TV viewers to other media -- particularly print -- and might prompt marketers to reallocate their ad spending, according to a poll conducted by WPP Group's MindShare.

Other options
One out of four adults surveyed said the strike will affect or change their viewing habits. That finding was highest among 35- to 44-year-olds and lowest among those 65 or older. The telephone poll, conducted during the weekend of Nov. 9 among 703 adults, found that 25% of the sample would "most likely" turn to books, magazines and newspapers if a favorite show was not on the air. Meanwhile, 13% said they would "watch whatever comes on at the time my usual TV show is on," and 12% indicated they would watch DVDs or pre-recorded videos.

The survey could lend ballast to marketers' greatest concern, that a prolonged strike will send significant numbers of consumers into the arms of other venues for entertainment and information, thereby weakening the power of TV -- which has long captured the majority of U.S. ad spending.

Even though 69% of the sample was aware of the continuing writers' strike, which commenced Nov. 5, consumer attitudes at present are largely hypothetical, noted Tata Sato, managing partner, director-insights at MindShare. After all, many networks continue to show original episodes. At present, only original late-night programming has been largely curtailed, with favorites including "The Colbert Report" and "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" being forced into repeats.

Should the strike continue, she added, consumer attitudes may become more pronounced, particularly about whether viewers will simply acquiesce and watch whatever is on the air at when an original episode of a favorite program was once slotted to run. MindShare expects to continue its consumer survey and advise clients accordingly. The media firm works on behalf of advertisers including Unilever, Sprint and American Express.

An early favorite
The respondents' selection of print as an early favorite alternative could prompt bigger issues for advertisers. While TV is a broad-based medium, most print is not. Magazines and newspapers are not able to offer marketers different kinds of content at different times of the day.

Respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 -- a prized demographic among advertisers -- said they were most likely to read a book, magazine or newspaper (19%); watch DVDs (11%); go to the internet (10%); or listen to music or the radio (7%). Selection of the internet was greatest among younger consumers and declined among older respondents, with only 4% of respondents 55 and up saying they would check out the web.

At present, consumers have a very high "forgiveness factor," said Ms. Sato. Many say they would return to TV if a strike forced cessation of original episodes of their favorites. Among respondents, 73% said they would "continue or go back to watching the show on a daily basis"; 12% said they "may not watch anymore"; and 8% said they "definitely won't watch."