It’s the Advertising, Stupid

I’ve worked in the American magazine industry for more than 12 years. I’m trying to understand why I am not super excited about the hand-held products being developed by the folks at Time Inc., Apple, etc. that will revolutionize the magazine experience. As of this blog posting, no one has launched anything. So what we’re really buzzing about is the concept of digital interactions with magazine brands.

An e-magazine, as Sports Illustrated shows, might look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk

Industry experts and analysts are making comments about how this technology could throw magazines a “lifeline” – since the print editions have decreased in size, frequency and number during the Great Recession. When money is tight, advertising budgets are the first to be cut. Paper isn’t getting any cheaper. With no concrete way to track the return on investment from a one page advertisement, it’s no wonder a “click through” edition seems tantalizing.

My opinion may represent a small fraction of the magazine consuming public, but I’m hoping my portion is the loudest. Some print magazines just shouldn’t become e-magazines. Mainly because I stare at a computer screen for eight or nine hours a day, at least. The content I read as a professional, I don’t mind reading online or via a hand-held device – I’m already there working anyways.

However, the content I read as a consumer, I prefer to have as a glossy hard copy. Even if frequency is reduced, there are just some magazines I don't want to read on an iPod or tablet. Some of these photo spreads are worth seeing in print. I know how hard art directors work to restrain everything they want to express into one treasured issue. Looking at a print edition of a good magazine is really a look at the best of the best. Someone spent the money and time to learn how to sort through all the images, fonts, content, text, shapes and sizes so that the reader is getting what they paid for. The people who produced it had a passion for the content.

I’m not convinced this has translated online. Digital content curators are being paid to win the search engine game. They only have Google’s best interest at heart. Not mine. So far, I think the results have reflected that.

And like the commercials during the Super Bowl, I look forward to seeing print advertisements. It’s too bad publishers can’t charge me more per issue – knowing, as a writer, what it takes to make a living at this craft. I’m one of the last dinosaurs who thinks good writing should equal good pay. I understand that these prices are based on elasticity and I’m sure the publishers are measuring this…right?

Unfortunately, the money that used to flow into print advertising just isn’t flowing there anymore.

With all the current digital means with which we can reach people, advertisers no longer need to pay magazine publishers thousands of dollars to market to their readers. Products have web sites, Twitter feeds, Facebook friends, text message promotions, and even email campaigns – all of which are free to the advertiser. In addition, they are also traceable. If a recipient opened an email, clicked on it, went to the web site, and bought the product, they know who, how, when and how much. (If e-magazines allow readers to do the same thing on editorial content, publishers must be drooling -- the question is can they monetize it while maintaining some semblance of editorial integrity?)

I’m no math genius, but if a print advertisement costs $90,000 in a monthly glossy magazine (like it did in Gourmet) and email is free….It won't be long before consumer magazines are bringing in maybe $20 in advertising per issue – which is interesting since that’s about the same price as an annual subscription charge to someone who already gets too many emails.

For more background information about this, check out the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16adco.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1260975848-9sGxiG/JG5wlmLNLTn7izA