Magazines: Underwhelming, not undervalued
According to the New York Times, magazine publishers are trying to figure out if they can raise their prices without losing subscribers.
The answer is no.
I subscribe to more than twenty magazines, including Time, Newsweek, US News, The New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Vanity Fair, GQ, Sports Illustrated, Wired, and GOOD. I read every single magazine cover to cover. I love magazines.
With some magazines, it can take weeks to finish reading through an issue because there are so many stories worth reading and so much detail to absorb. A pile going on ten inches high sits on the table next to my bed, filled with ‘must read’ issues and articles from these magazines. WIth other magazines on my list, it is rare that I find anything interesting or truly valuable from issue to issue. It happens, but not often. Most weeks I can breeze through an issue in minutes and send it off to the recycle bin without a second thought. The only reason i stay subscribed is because the subscription fee is cheap enough that I can wait around for the occasional ‘must read’ article.
If the prices go up, however, the number of magazines that I subscribe to will drop for sure.
I just don’t think magazine publishers understand — most content today that they produce isn’t worth paying big money for. The topics are predictable. The coverage is bland and generalized. The interviews are cookie-cutter. And so much of the magazine is filled with advertisements that — a) don’t speak to me as a reader, b) fail to provide me with any action that I can easily take, or c) don’t relate in any significant way to the content that I am paying to review — that I barely get any content in the first place.
In today’s article, the CMO of Heart Magazines, Michael A. Clinton, was quoted saying “We’re realizing that the product is undervalued.” I think he meant to say underwhelming.
I understand magazines are losing money. But, if publishers want their products to survive, and more importantly generate revenue from the content that they are offering, most are going to have to step up their game. More and better content is the key – and if you make that available, the audience will be there, with money to spend. I say that as a subscriber and someone who believes in the value of magazines. Raise the prices on your current offering and you will find yourself in a deeper hole with no prospect of digging yourself out.












Magazines Are Underwhelming, Not Undervalued http://ff.im/-2674t
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
#wemedia Magazines Are Underwhelming, Not Undervalued http://ow.ly/2MHi
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Magazines Are Underwhelming, Not Undervalued: According to the New York Times, magazine publishers are trying to.. http://tinyurl.com/czzxmv
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I agree. It sounds like we can start cutting down on our subscriptions. How do devices like the Kindle affect this?
Yes, UK and French magazines are generally much superior to American mags in content. I don’t think they’re as beholden to the advertisers. I’m thinking of things like Car and Chasseurs D’Images.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
Oh, don’t forget Evo- fantastic car nagazube that really is honest about what they think.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
I totally agree, I have always had several magazines I subsribe to but it seems that now you read the same articles every issue and actually in most different publications. I now only subscribe to 2 magazines.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
This is soooo true.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
question is … is that a function of the writers or the editors?
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
@heatherroxbk,
owners
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, and writers all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues shot no being shot at the in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff at many of the magazines, creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, and writers all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues now being shot at the in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff at many of the magazines, creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, writers and art directors all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues now being shot at the magazine’s in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff , creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
@Dante, you don’t by chance have a point, do you ,) Having quit a major publishing gig for the same reasons, I do hear ya. Just read that Steven Brill and friends suggest moving failing newspapers to the big world wide web idea? Sounds brilliant, if it were 1999. But, 2009, a bit late on movement?
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
Safe is indeed the controlling principle. If we don’t say anything, we can’t be held responsible for what we said. This is true of books, magazines and US business. We want to minimize risks, but nothing is accomplished without risk.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor
i’m rarely willing to pay for a magazine anymore.
wp.
This comment was originally posted on http://www.aphotoeditor.com/)“>A Photo Editor