As the world kept him thinking in turns so would the blank, empty, undiluted space in the upper right corner of his unimaginative American blog. It left itself for last - as if it knew it was much too smart for him - as if the search bar that had once been there was an overture to another space in time - as if that corner meant more than it really did.
Thoughts On The Future of Magazines
There’s a new consultancy in town and normally this kind of news would just put me to sleep… but since the new company is being run by some names I trust and it concerns the future of magazine technology I decided to check it out. Industry big-wigs Bo Sacks, David Renard, and Nick Hampshire are now mediaIDEAS and they want to help you publish your magazine… or at least help you TH(ink) about publishing your magazine… in a digital world.
Among the company’s subscription based services (which range from $2800 to $7200 per year) are weekly briefs, or TH(ink) Notes. These TH(ink) Notes are billed as “essential notes… providing unique actionable research and insight on technology and publishing to help you guide your business into the future.” Lucky for you (and for me) the guys at mediaIDEAS are kind enough to let prospective clients view two sample notes (one on E-Paper, one on the definition of a magazine) right there on their web site.
While the note on E-Paper is a somewhat hopeful look into the still questionable future of mass market electronic readers, the more interesting and immediately relevant of the two is the note entitled The Definition of a Print and Digital Magazine. In it Renard, Sacks, and Hampshire lay out what they believe are the six key properties that magazines must have if they are to “remain relevant as they move online.” In a nutshell, they feel magazines must be metered (page oriented), edited, designed, date-stamped, permanent, and periodic.
While I can agree that these are a great core six to describe what a print magazine is, they are limited to being just that – a great core six to describe what a PRINT magazine is. To try and graft these properties onto your emerging digital efforts is not only misguided, it could be fatal. I’m not saying that these couldn’t be principles of your digital products in some fashion… some of them are certainly going to be (edited and designed)… but if you make them core principles you are most assuredly courting failure.
Take for example the property of permanence (which by the authors definition is really better termed stagnancy).
in a magazine all the content for an issue is set by its release date; even though the edited content for an issue can be more than what each reader is presented with, to allow for varying levels of customization, once it is created, it is set and can no longer be changed or corrupted apart for minor revisions
In the print paradigm this kind of permanence is pretty much a given. Everything about print is permanent… as permanent as death. The stain of ink on dead trees just wont budge. Nothing grows in print… nothing quickens or breathes or reacts… the idea of a collaborative, evolving document is entirely foreign to the print experience. To a large extent the conversational nature of the internet and digital technologies are a revolution against the stagnancy, the tyranny even, of print. These technologies empower the public voice and publishers who ignore or suppress that voice are playing a dangerous game. Why, after tasting the sweet honey of conversational expression, would I – your reader – ever want to go back to being written at? To do so, especially in a digital environment that is capable of giving me a conversational experience, would be extremely frustrating.
Perhaps the most damaging theme in this paper is the idea that publishers really don’t have to change that much… that, with the right consultants and vendors, they can make a living in the digital world using the same approach they are using right now in print.
Understanding that, though the medium will change and a a number of hybrid solutions will appear, the six critical components (metered, edited, designed, date-stamped, permanent, and periodic) of a magazine will not.
It would be nice if that were true, but it’s not. To stay competitive in the next 25 years and beyond, publishers will need to confront massive, disruptive, explosive change. They will have to realize that trying to take the successful formula of one medium and forcing it onto another will only cause them grief. They will need to jettison ingrained patterns of thinking and learn to see the landscape with youthful eyes. Sorry folks, no matter what you might want to believe, you most definitely cannot take it with you.
Ultimately what this TH(ink) Note… in fact what mediaIDEAS as a company is trying to do – define and capture the essence of a print magazine and apply it to the digital world – is noble, but hopeless. I realize that there are many people in the magazine world who believe in digital magazines, but to me it’s an empty concept. What makes print magazines great, what makes readers fall in love with them, has just way to much to do with the medium of print to ever be recreated digitally. The good news is that print magazines will continue in some form for quite a long while… the tactile experience of reading a magazine, of flipping through four color pages, the scent of paper, is too enjoyable to simply fade away.
The publishers that endure will continue to print titles, if only as ancillary products, but they will generate revenue predominantly via digital information products that take advantage of the conversational nature of the digital world. So to you dear publisher I say, forget the six critical components as described by mediaIDEAS and explore the new and emerging components of digital information. Still, if you absolutely have to have some kind of formula to hold onto in that long dark night of digital transition then try this: keep the components edited and designed, throw out the other four and replace them with these: conversational, continuous, collaborative, concentrated. I know, I know, that’s kind of vague… but stay tuned and maybe I’ll get deeper into them in a future post.
View Comments for “Thoughts On The Future of Magazines”
Post a comment
[...] are certainly some issues in the essay to debate – Michael Turro as always offers thoughtful criticism about some of the points – but it’s great to see so much thoughts from so many respected [...]
Michael, I agree with you. Print publishing will never map cleanly to digital publishing, but why should it? What I am finding is that in the digital world conversational, continuous, and collaborative are certainly must-haves.
Michael, I agree with you. Print publishing will never map cleanly to digital publishing, but why should it? What I am finding is that in the digital world conversational, continuous, and collaborative are certainly must-haves.
Interesting postulating and I agree with some of what you say. Indeed the majority of the future of communication and information distribution will be of a digital nature. And your descriptive nature of “a collaborative, evolving document is entirely foreign to the print experience.” You are correct here as well. Print is not digital. Here I think we can agree.
The point you are missing is that publishers now have many ways to use their collective franchise of content. Community is one, endlessly revised web pages without end is another. But it has taken 600 years to perfect a magazine. The beauty of such tried and true design is that it has a beginning, middle and an end. There is a comfort level in that design, and in that process and commitment, by both the reader and the publisher.
As an example I have read the NY times on-line for years. My preferred path is using newsstand.com. The exact replication of the printed version. Why? Because like a reader of any special interest publication, I want the ads and format that challenges me to read the stories that I might have missed in the web style version. I enjoy the digital flipping of pages, scanning for this and that. I enjoy starting the “paper” in the beginning, getting to the middle of it, and finally finishing it. That last statement can not be said of most if any web sites.
So I say to your observation that there is room for both paths of information distribution. Which one will rule dominant is yet to be determined. The internet and with it this new digital style of publishing is still in its infancy. New hardware, will also affect the methods of reading. E-paper might be as powerful an event as movable type.
Time only will tell how we progress, and what the reading public will finally find true comfort in.
BoSacks
-30-
Interesting postulating and I agree with some of what you say. Indeed the majority of the future of communication and information distribution will be of a digital nature. And your descriptive nature of “a collaborative, evolving document is entirely foreign to the print experience.” You are correct here as well. Print is not digital. Here I think we can agree.
The point you are missing is that publishers now have many ways to use their collective franchise of content. Community is one, endlessly revised web pages without end is another. But it has taken 600 years to perfect a magazine. The beauty of such tried and true design is that it has a beginning, middle and an end. There is a comfort level in that design, and in that process and commitment, by both the reader and the publisher.
As an example I have read the NY times on-line for years. My preferred path is using newsstand.com. The exact replication of the printed version. Why? Because like a reader of any special interest publication, I want the ads and format that challenges me to read the stories that I might have missed in the web style version. I enjoy the digital flipping of pages, scanning for this and that. I enjoy starting the “paper” in the beginning, getting to the middle of it, and finally finishing it. That last statement can not be said of most if any web sites.
So I say to your observation that there is room for both paths of information distribution. Which one will rule dominant is yet to be determined. The internet and with it this new digital style of publishing is still in its infancy. New hardware, will also affect the methods of reading. E-paper might be as powerful an event as movable type.
Time only will tell how we progress, and what the reading public will finally find true comfort in.
BoSacks
-30-
Bo-
I think we are definitely barking up the same tree… we’re just focused on different branches. Believe me I do understand that “publishers now have many ways to use their collective franchise of content” – that is sort of a basic theme in my post. Those ways are going to gain in influence and value, slowly outshining the linear print experience.
Where we differ – and this is purely a matter of speculation – is that I just don’t see linearity holding its value in the digital world. The idea of beginning, middle, end is not so much a core trait of the magazine as it is of the print medium. Unfortunately linearity isn’t a core trait of digital information. Digital natives just won’t/don’t relish it the same way you and I do. The way they interact with information is fundamentally different than the ways in which the preceding generations have. For them, the last 600 years don’t really mean squat. Young minds are being patterned by network and publishers who hope to speak with them must understand and publish inside that pattern.
We are indeed witnessing unprecedented changes in in technology that are having a profound effect on publishing… there’s no real telling how it will play out… what devices and technologies will become the new standards… the new paper. In light of that, do you really think it’s wise to try and force the outline of the old medium onto the youthful and evolving bones of the new?
Bo-
I think we are definitely barking up the same tree… we're just focused on different branches. Believe me I do understand that “publishers now have many ways to use their collective franchise of content” – that is sort of a basic theme in my post. Those ways are going to gain in influence and value, slowly outshining the linear print experience.
Where we differ – and this is purely a matter of speculation – is that I just don't see linearity holding its value in the digital world. The idea of beginning, middle, end is not so much a core trait of the magazine as it is of the print medium. Unfortunately linearity isn't a core trait of digital information. Digital natives just won't/don't relish it the same way you and I do. The way they interact with information is fundamentally different than the ways in which the preceding generations have. For them, the last 600 years don't really mean squat. Young minds are being patterned by network and publishers who hope to speak with them must understand and publish inside that pattern.
We are indeed witnessing unprecedented changes in in technology that are having a profound effect on publishing… there's no real telling how it will play out… what devices and technologies will become the new standards… the new paper. In light of that, do you really think it's wise to try and force the outline of the old medium onto the youthful and evolving bones of the new?
This article I so true, keep on writing like this, enjoyment to read
530
Delete
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)
Delete
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)