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.
How magazines (the original social media) squandered their position and (almost) screwed the pooch with regard to the web.
For what seems like centuries the magazine has been the state of the art in social media. The magazine has, more than any other medium, been a crucial element in the building of communities of specific interest. Whether that interest is wine, motorcycles, baseball, or marijuana, you can bet there was a magazine using the niche model years before the Internet was even sketched out on a Defense Department chalkboard.
Given that head start… given the accumulation all that knowledge regarding the building and nurturing of niche communities… one might think that magazines are in a perfect position to transition to the web and dominate the new social media landscape. Well…
I don’t even have to finish that thought. One look around the social communities that are now thriving across the web and any blind man could easily see that traditional magazine titles are horribly, inexcusably absent. To blame that absence on technology is wrongheaded. Technology can be kept up with and publishers have done as much in the past (CTP the most recent example).
No, the shift we are now going through is as much social as it is technological, perhaps more so.
The real tragedy here is the way in which the magazine sector has so far totally misread, underestimated, and ignored the changes that are flowing through their readership, their communities. Their readers are out in the wilderness of the web, exploring, talking, and finding smart folks who are willing to talk back to them. They don’t have to wait for editorial proclamations to come in the mail anymore… in fact that they ever did that seems more and more absurd with each passing day. Information, conversation, knowledge is everywhere. They are out there experiencing, learning, enjoying whatever it was that brought them to the magazine in the first place… and they are doing it with newfound zeal. The web has got them charged.
So where and why exactly did the magazine start to loose the community? Why are the former experts slowly loosing their status as the go to source for information?
In a word: arrogance.
There, I said it. The problem that magazines have on the web is not the fast paced change in technology, but the sedentary arrogance that is epidemic among magazine editors. Editors and publishers who feel (usually at a subconscious level – these are good people by and large) that they occupy a place of privilege within their communities are killing off readership with each issue… a problem that most magazines still blindly wrestle with as I write this.
All is not lost, though. There is still time for magazines to make a play, a serious play, in the social space. Certainly old attitudes and egos will need to be checked and the editorial stance has to move away from proclamation and toward conversation, but that can happen. By and large editors are smart, sensible people… they can change if the change is important enough.
I am convinced that if magazines can break away from the linear, pipeline mentality, and embrace a transparent, networked way of working they can regain their status as the leaders in the social space. If editors can learn to listen to their communities and provide intellectual space for them to express themselves then old titles will find new relevance.
So, if you are an editor, or a publisher, stop obsessing over the tech… that will iron itself out. You have to get back to basics… You have to re-learn your community… You have to get your hands dirty and participate in the conversation – especially when it’s NOT taking place on your property… You have to mix it up… You want to be the leader of the charge– not the headless king.
View Comments for “How magazines (the original social media) squandered their position and (almost) screwed the pooch with regard to the web.”
Post a comment
Michael:
You couldn’t be more correct. It is arrogance peppered with a complete lack of understanding. You can’t build a business plan on a platform you don’t know about and don’t use. Senior management doesn’t use the Internet and don’t fathom the depths that it can go to.
I loved your rant. It is right on, and I wish to but you a cup of coffee or a shot of tequila. Whichever seems best for an ongoing conversation.
BoSacks
-30-
Totally agree – editors (content strategists) need to think about how to place their audiences front and center and actively encourage participation and conversation – with virtually every piece on content – get the audience to contribute ! Colin Crawford
While you are clearly correct when it comes to most consumer and enthusiast magazines, there are many business media companies that have long as the platform for entire industry marketplaces. The company Colin works for puts on a little show called Macworld Expo that is so important to the Macintosh community, Steve Jobs has chosen to make it *the place* for his major pronouncements to the Macosphere. Sure, IDG may have missed out on some aspects of online “community” and user-generated content, but they manage — I’m guessing here — tradeshows with revenues that surpass anything generated by any web-only “business-to-business” community. Also, while consumer magazines have not been innovators in online communities, there are companies like Time Inc’s Southern Progress that have packed out convention centers with “Cooking Schools” since the 1960s. Those are certainly “communities.”
And what about magazines that are published by universities — there are probably 1,000+ titles in this category. Those “classnotes” (user-generated content) in such magazines have always been an important cornerstone of communities. Furthermore, those universities are actually the brands on which Facebook has built its success. In other words, it’s not Facebook that has created the community as much as it has facilitated the communities created by those universities — and that have been perpetuated by alumni magazines.
So, while I couldn’t agree with you more about lost opportunity, I think the magazine format has never been — and will never be — the market, community or institution…the readers (viewers, business people, alumni) who share a common interest or marketplace or life-experience have always been, and will always be, all that matters.
Rex:
I think we are barking up the same tree here. Your point about Macworld and Southern Living are kind of what I was driving at in the post; namely that magazines have been a focal point for community activity for many years.
Ultimately what I’m getting at is that now it seems that many magazines are in danger of ceding that ground to start-ups, blogs, and twitter conversations. Not that there is any real imminent danger, but a few years out there may be.
Editors and publishers need to face this now… they need to come to terms with the new social paradigm that is emerging in all community spaces… they need to view themselves as participants in a conversation rather than a voice emanating from a lectern.
As to your last paragraph – I emphatically agree that the format will never be and never has been the community. However, magazines have always been and are in danger now of NOT being a driving member of the community.
This article I so true, keep on writing like this, enjoyment to read
860
Delete
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)
Delete
Sent via mobile (so please excuse the brevity and any typos)
[...] also read as a blatant attempt to commoditize the concept of specialized audience, which – as Turro has pointed out – is what really makes magazines special in the first [...]