The Death of the Magazine(honest-broker.com)
honest-broker.com
The Death of the Magazine
https://www.honest-broker.com/p/the-death-of-the-magazine
92 comments
Good analysis.
In marketing, a "competitor" is not just somebody else doing a similar thing; one form of competition is something entirely different that you might spend your money or time instead (a "substitute").
Many business plans ignore substitutes and only focus on similar competitive offerings.
Smartphones are substitutes for a lot of things: playing football with a friend; human ad-hoc conversation at a bus stop; playing Candy Crush instead of reading newspapers on your morning commute; entertaining yourself and your date at a romantic dinner.
In marketing, a "competitor" is not just somebody else doing a similar thing; one form of competition is something entirely different that you might spend your money or time instead (a "substitute").
Many business plans ignore substitutes and only focus on similar competitive offerings.
Smartphones are substitutes for a lot of things: playing football with a friend; human ad-hoc conversation at a bus stop; playing Candy Crush instead of reading newspapers on your morning commute; entertaining yourself and your date at a romantic dinner.
"Smartphones are substitutes for a lot of things: playing football with a friend; human ad-hoc conversation at a bus stop; playing Candy Crush instead of reading newspapers on your morning commute; entertaining yourself and your date at a romantic dinner."
It's a treacherous slide from Visceral to vicarious, to finally virtual.
It's a treacherous slide from Visceral to vicarious, to finally virtual.
Yeah. Speaking for myself, it's not that there are all these online novels I can read for free. (OK, there are in the public domain but that's not my point.) It's that there is a lot of other reading and entertainment/education options out there.
Oh there's plenty of new online novels as well...
https://www.royalroad.com/fictions/best-rated
https://www.royalroad.com/fictions/best-rated
Some of which are free/donation, some of which are not. I'd be pretty surprised if people in general were reading as many novels as they did at one point. (I may be wrong of course.)
I recently ran across Treasure Hunting Magazine. https://www.treasurehunting.co.uk/ It bills itself as "Britain's Best Selling Metal Detecting Magazine." While technically this would be true if it was the only one it does at least give the impression that there are others.
I find it humorous to think about the second best selling metal detecting magazine's staff cursing that Treasure Hunting beat them to another big metal detector scoop.
I find it humorous to think about the second best selling metal detecting magazine's staff cursing that Treasure Hunting beat them to another big metal detector scoop.
> It's not because you can get the same information online for free. Much to my amazement, in 20+ years, no one has really catered for this particular market online - there's a lot of chuntering on forums and Facebook groups,
This "chuntering" is the replacement. It's the same reason I spend more time on HN rather than tech blogs. Here, I can directly interact with people who have experience in areas I'm interested in, compared to a blog or magazine where I can only passively absorb info from professional writers.
The quality of writing here is lower, and I have to "chunter" through a fair amount of noise, but the lived experience is orders of magnitude higher and more than outweighs the difference. I'd never go back to passively absorbing info from a magazine when I can have this.
Of course, HN is far higher quality than most FB groups. But the answer will never be to go back to printed magazines or their online equivalents.
This "chuntering" is the replacement. It's the same reason I spend more time on HN rather than tech blogs. Here, I can directly interact with people who have experience in areas I'm interested in, compared to a blog or magazine where I can only passively absorb info from professional writers.
The quality of writing here is lower, and I have to "chunter" through a fair amount of noise, but the lived experience is orders of magnitude higher and more than outweighs the difference. I'd never go back to passively absorbing info from a magazine when I can have this.
Of course, HN is far higher quality than most FB groups. But the answer will never be to go back to printed magazines or their online equivalents.
Seems to me that the correct strategy for a successful print magazine is to not focus on the _content_, but to instead focus on the _form_. Which is to say that there _are_ people who do still enjoy reading periodicals and printed books, etc, in general, and producing something that is entertaining and interesting on it's own as an object beyond the "content" it contains is the way to cater to those people. Similar to what McSweeney's has been doing for decades. Create a magazine as a "collectable" or "art piece" that people want to put on their shelf and pick up again or show off from time to time.
With a somewhat loose definition, its arguable that the most successful magazine publisher right now is actually KiwiCo. Magazines haven't been the best way to deliver information to people for a long time, but there's a lot you can do with printed materials and subscriptions that just can't be done on a computer.
With a somewhat loose definition, its arguable that the most successful magazine publisher right now is actually KiwiCo. Magazines haven't been the best way to deliver information to people for a long time, but there's a lot you can do with printed materials and subscriptions that just can't be done on a computer.
There is way too much free entertainment these days. That's the most underrated difference in the world between now and 40 years ago. The change is even more dramatic for people who live in developing countries where TVs were rare 40 years ago.
I also think this is why traditional opera and the symphony are failing. People have too much entertainment.
I also think this is why traditional opera and the symphony are failing. People have too much entertainment.
Opera and classical music are simply no longer the popular form of musical theater or music.
Stage musicals (Hamilton) and film musicals (anything from Disney) are still very popular.
Popular music concerts (Taylor Swift) are obviously incredibly popular, and they're usually not symphony concerts.
While popular tastes have largely diverged from classical art music, a good deal of "popular" (and often excellent, in my opinion) symphonic music is still being produced and listened to as film music and game music.
Stage musicals (Hamilton) and film musicals (anything from Disney) are still very popular.
Popular music concerts (Taylor Swift) are obviously incredibly popular, and they're usually not symphony concerts.
While popular tastes have largely diverged from classical art music, a good deal of "popular" (and often excellent, in my opinion) symphonic music is still being produced and listened to as film music and game music.
Were they ever "popular?" Hasn't Opera and Classical long been the domain of the highly educated and elite? The more intellectual among the middle/lower class only receiving via recordings, radio, charity concerts, and community ensembles?
They struggle right now yes, but the major organizations in the great cities (London, New York, Los Angeles, Vienna, Berlin, etc.) all seem to still stay afloat.
They struggle right now yes, but the major organizations in the great cities (London, New York, Los Angeles, Vienna, Berlin, etc.) all seem to still stay afloat.
Opera used to be rather popular, back before there were recordings. Opera stars like Jenny Lind and Enrico Caruso used to be a big deal, and played to packed houses. Every city had an opera house, even quite small ones.
Ballet and classical music were similar, as was classical theater like Shakespeare. They would be presented by touring companies, as well as community groups.
I think that recorded media played a key part in displacing them. The older forms, in their most expensive incarnations, remained as entertainment for the wealthy, as a way to distinguish themselves from the masses who watched recorded entertainment.
But a lot of grand old movie theaters started life as opera houses and classical theaters. They used to be popular entertainment.
Ballet and classical music were similar, as was classical theater like Shakespeare. They would be presented by touring companies, as well as community groups.
I think that recorded media played a key part in displacing them. The older forms, in their most expensive incarnations, remained as entertainment for the wealthy, as a way to distinguish themselves from the masses who watched recorded entertainment.
But a lot of grand old movie theaters started life as opera houses and classical theaters. They used to be popular entertainment.
I think another reason for their failure is the same reason the bottom has fallen out of the antiques market, because of changes in the culture, people don't have the respect for the past like they used to. Toppling of old statues, renaming of all sorts of things to have no connection to the past or history, the rewriting of history in popular shows, etc, are all sort of extreme reactions against the past and tradition and it's reflected in a fall in demand for older culture.
The insanity of any narrative different to my own is an attack on my own. Most insane recent attempt : The attempt to inject the colonialism&racism story into Jared Diamonds books: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/14/science/ancient-dna-easte...
It must be horrible if a story of a fight explained all the world you know all your life giving you conversation airsuperiority.. and then that story starts to fade out while you are in it..
It must be horrible if a story of a fight explained all the world you know all your life giving you conversation airsuperiority.. and then that story starts to fade out while you are in it..
>I also think this is why traditional opera and the symphony are failing. People have too much entertainment.
I haven't looked into this too much, but I hypothesize this might not be the case due to attendance numbers. Top-line symphony and philharmonics still sell out regularly. I know locally, the LA Philharmonic's shows at both the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Hollywood Bowl have robust attendance.
I want to explore a different avenue -- donors and patrons. I wonder if the new generations of millionaires/billionaires don't donate the way they once did to the classical arts.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951... -- the LA Phil does rather well for itself, but with $64mm in artists' salaries/fees in 2023 and only $42mm in contributions, one cannot help but wonder if this could be helped out by a couple of more billionaires setting up endowments?
I haven't looked into this too much, but I hypothesize this might not be the case due to attendance numbers. Top-line symphony and philharmonics still sell out regularly. I know locally, the LA Philharmonic's shows at both the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Hollywood Bowl have robust attendance.
I want to explore a different avenue -- donors and patrons. I wonder if the new generations of millionaires/billionaires don't donate the way they once did to the classical arts.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951... -- the LA Phil does rather well for itself, but with $64mm in artists' salaries/fees in 2023 and only $42mm in contributions, one cannot help but wonder if this could be helped out by a couple of more billionaires setting up endowments?
Free entertainment is great. it prevents additional resource extraction from the environment and allows acceptance of relative masspoverty (compared to our parents ). panem and circensis indeed.
I see a covid chart in the newspaper one time that had colored lines for the infections with different virus versions and vacinations with different "vacines" and thought woah! There is more information and clarity here than in hundreds of internet posts and articles combined.
I don't disagree - I subscribe to two magazines for a hobby of mine. I used to buy physical copies of one because I liked the fact I'd have to put aside time to disconnect and enjoy the content.
The ownership of that physical one change and the physical copy increased in price by 50%, so I went with the online subscription. Now I'm 6 months behind in my reading and when I do find the time I skim more than read.
The ownership of that physical one change and the physical copy increased in price by 50%, so I went with the online subscription. Now I'm 6 months behind in my reading and when I do find the time I skim more than read.
"The Internet reverses cultural conditions of literacy and retrieves features of orality."
https://x.com/pmarca/status/1834899956874023247
https://x.com/pmarca/status/1834899956874023247
Not just magazines. I remember being amazed in 2018 how my flatmates were watching YouTube on their living-room TV instead of a broadcast TV channel.
This change of attention is also affecting movie studios like Disney
This change of attention is also affecting movie studios like Disney
"Attention Is All You Need", as they say...
This is an important piece. In the last decade a lot of what was considered valuable has been thrown out. I saw them on streets on monthly furniture disposal. Encyclopedias, books, tapes, magazines, devices of all kinds. None of it seemed to matter anymore. Yet I don't feel there's something equivalent that replaced it. Wikipedia maybe but .. not really.
And the trend of "replace in-depth well paid work by cheap short term attention catching hooks" keeps spreading.
It's very very strange to witness that kind of social waves.
And the trend of "replace in-depth well paid work by cheap short term attention catching hooks" keeps spreading.
It's very very strange to witness that kind of social waves.
My print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the best gifts I ever purchased for myself upon graduating from high school.
The social pressure that makes youngsters watch TikTok cat videos instead, mixed with instant gratification effects from online media consumption (in contrast with the active reading of a 150 page in-depth encyclopedia article on a topic) leads to generations that are unwilling - and for lack of exercise then also unable - to put much effort into anything, and to value knowledge/expertise.
The social pressure that makes youngsters watch TikTok cat videos instead, mixed with instant gratification effects from online media consumption (in contrast with the active reading of a 150 page in-depth encyclopedia article on a topic) leads to generations that are unwilling - and for lack of exercise then also unable - to put much effort into anything, and to value knowledge/expertise.
Turns out the computer may become a wheelchair for the mind after all.
> Encyclopedias, books, tapes, magazines, devices of all kinds. None of it seemed to matter anymore. Yet I don't feel there's something equivalent that replaced it. Wikipedia maybe but .. not really.
They were replaced with (sometimes inferior, but often cheaper and more convenient) substitutes delivered via the web or internet, often to smartphones, whose usage patterns tend toward short-form, bite-sized "content" (as per TFA). Playback devices (CD players, DVD players, radios, hi-fi audio systems...) have been replaced by mobile devices and/or smart TVs/streaming devices.
The brick and mortar stores that used to sell physical media (bookstores, music stores, magazine stands, video stores, software stores, etc.) are mostly gone as well.
Libraries are still around, but digital collections are hamstrung by copyright law.
They were replaced with (sometimes inferior, but often cheaper and more convenient) substitutes delivered via the web or internet, often to smartphones, whose usage patterns tend toward short-form, bite-sized "content" (as per TFA). Playback devices (CD players, DVD players, radios, hi-fi audio systems...) have been replaced by mobile devices and/or smart TVs/streaming devices.
The brick and mortar stores that used to sell physical media (bookstores, music stores, magazine stands, video stores, software stores, etc.) are mostly gone as well.
Libraries are still around, but digital collections are hamstrung by copyright law.
I don't think it's that surprising that such items are being discarded today.
They might have had value at some point in the past, but they probably haven't retained that value well at all.
For example, enough of the information in those encyclopedia sets, non-fiction books, and magazines is probably now out-of-date, invalid, wrong, or incomplete.
Most of the paperback books and magazines I've seen discarded in boxes along sidewalks are merely previous generations' equivalents of "cheap short term attention catching hooks" from when such things inherently required more physical overhead.
A good chunk of those items probably weren't particularly wanted to begin with, or are infeasible to keep now. No replacements are needed or wanted.
Some of the books, tapes, devices, and other items were probably given as birthday, Christmas, graduation, etc., gifts. They might not have even been that useful to the recipients to begin with. Physical gift-giving like that is less-common these days in my experience, with gift cards and even cash replacing physical items. A lot of items given as gifts in the past are simply no longer offered for sale today, or are so cheap that giving them can even be seen as insulting by some people.
Much of the new housing stock in places like Canada, Europe, and even the US to a lesser extent are small apartments. A lot of people just don't have space for items in general, especially when downsizing or moving into a retirement or care facility.
Enough of the items I see discarded are also damaged, broken, or otherwise unusable, too.
They might have had value at some point in the past, but they probably haven't retained that value well at all.
For example, enough of the information in those encyclopedia sets, non-fiction books, and magazines is probably now out-of-date, invalid, wrong, or incomplete.
Most of the paperback books and magazines I've seen discarded in boxes along sidewalks are merely previous generations' equivalents of "cheap short term attention catching hooks" from when such things inherently required more physical overhead.
A good chunk of those items probably weren't particularly wanted to begin with, or are infeasible to keep now. No replacements are needed or wanted.
Some of the books, tapes, devices, and other items were probably given as birthday, Christmas, graduation, etc., gifts. They might not have even been that useful to the recipients to begin with. Physical gift-giving like that is less-common these days in my experience, with gift cards and even cash replacing physical items. A lot of items given as gifts in the past are simply no longer offered for sale today, or are so cheap that giving them can even be seen as insulting by some people.
Much of the new housing stock in places like Canada, Europe, and even the US to a lesser extent are small apartments. A lot of people just don't have space for items in general, especially when downsizing or moving into a retirement or care facility.
Enough of the items I see discarded are also damaged, broken, or otherwise unusable, too.
For informational content, maybe, but on a larger level it seems that nothing has value anymore. Makes me curious about what disappeared in people's mind. I don't think spotify replaces a set of LPs even though in terms of sound waves you can have the same amount of bits.
Spotify absolutely replaces LPs or other physical media. Sure you own the physical media, but it doesn’t last forever, it takes up space and it’s somewhat inconvenient. Most people don’t really care about owning music and are happy to pay a few dollars a month for a service that has every song they might ever way to play and to never have to move a box of records again.
I wonder about if lot of these were ever considered valuable. To buy yes, and then kept around for a bit as it costed money, but after certain time as valuable? Very likely not. Pruning collections is normal process and something like encyclopaedia never truly had much second hand value.
You buy a book, and you read it one time and then after it has been sitting in yourself filling up for years maybe you decide just to get rid of it. I have shelf full of books I will likely not read and by parents have book cases I think they have not touched during my lifetime... At some point some of this collection is discarded and "donating" feels cleanest way.
You buy a book, and you read it one time and then after it has been sitting in yourself filling up for years maybe you decide just to get rid of it. I have shelf full of books I will likely not read and by parents have book cases I think they have not touched during my lifetime... At some point some of this collection is discarded and "donating" feels cleanest way.
One would hope that all of these hardcopy texts at least get digitized to be preserved on Internet Archive (and preferably as many more backups as possible).
Another source, for academic writing, is jstor.org. A lot of the older stuff is free with an account. It presents as if you need a current educational affiliation, but not so for a basic free account.
Honestly, a ton of stuff is digitally preserved. Far more than happened historically. Sure a lot of things will still end up in the bit bucket but we're still never going to preserve everything and it's probably just as well that we don't.
mostly they are. newspapers.com has 1000's of papers (in image form, not text, unfortunately) going back to the 1800's.
Too bad it requires a subscription.
I have scanned old science books that I treasured as a kid and uploaded them to archive.org.
I have scanned old science books that I treasured as a kid and uploaded them to archive.org.
True. Maybe someday, they'll decide "This isn't profitable enough!" and sell to Internet Archive.
I feel like the author either has an enormous blind spot or is intentionally failing to observe the fact that magazines exist in a completely different landscape today than they did even a decade ago, much less nearly 100 years ago (in the example cited from "It's a Wonderful Life").
The cycle didn't start with publishers shrinking page count and cutting back on long-form content - publishers started shrinking page count and cutting back on content after they started losing money (at least in many cases).
Print publishers were/are competing for attention as much as dollars, and there's so many other things that grab people's attention. There's so many other sources of information. Advertisers have many, many more venues and -- sadly -- they tend to choose the venues that they can track over the ones they can't.
I used to write for several print magazines in the tech space -- and I watched their ad budgets get hollowed out by online options because (generally) buying ad space in a magazine is an act of faith vs. "we ran this online campaign and we see we have this conversion rate and can track that 1,023 people downloaded our ebook and that this marketing 'touched' 75 accounts that closed or renewed deals for more than $1m."
I love print. Love it. But I also have realized that, honestly, I have very little time for reading the print magazines I subscribe to. I subscribe to a few sci-fi print publications and they just gather dust. I have a Mother Jones print/online subscription. Usually the print version goes into recycling without ever looking at it.
What is lacking here is any suggestion of a solution. He gestures at the problem being cutting content, but then closes with a "we need to work on building something else" without actually describing the something else worth a damn.
The cycle didn't start with publishers shrinking page count and cutting back on long-form content - publishers started shrinking page count and cutting back on content after they started losing money (at least in many cases).
Print publishers were/are competing for attention as much as dollars, and there's so many other things that grab people's attention. There's so many other sources of information. Advertisers have many, many more venues and -- sadly -- they tend to choose the venues that they can track over the ones they can't.
I used to write for several print magazines in the tech space -- and I watched their ad budgets get hollowed out by online options because (generally) buying ad space in a magazine is an act of faith vs. "we ran this online campaign and we see we have this conversion rate and can track that 1,023 people downloaded our ebook and that this marketing 'touched' 75 accounts that closed or renewed deals for more than $1m."
I love print. Love it. But I also have realized that, honestly, I have very little time for reading the print magazines I subscribe to. I subscribe to a few sci-fi print publications and they just gather dust. I have a Mother Jones print/online subscription. Usually the print version goes into recycling without ever looking at it.
What is lacking here is any suggestion of a solution. He gestures at the problem being cutting content, but then closes with a "we need to work on building something else" without actually describing the something else worth a damn.
>publishers started shrinking page count and cutting back on content after they started losing money (at least in many cases)
I thought this was quite well understood which is why the article says something like "you cannot fix sales problems by decreasing the quality of your product" (too lazy to go find actual quote)
I thought this was quite well understood which is why the article says something like "you cannot fix sales problems by decreasing the quality of your product" (too lazy to go find actual quote)
That's overly simplistic, in this case. You're not going to sell more buggies by making the quality of your buggy worse, true. But you're _also_ not going to sell more buggies, period, if everybody is preferring cars.
Likewise - publishers know that cuts aren't going to make their magazines more compelling - but it's 1) cut somewhere or 2) go out of business faster. You might manage to survive by maintaining quality and even adding things if the audience is large enough and you can pull from competing publications. (Although, in some cases, the cuts are things readers don't see -- e.g., allowing advertisers to place contributed content, or ensuring you don't publish anything that upsets the remaining advertisers...)
Likewise - publishers know that cuts aren't going to make their magazines more compelling - but it's 1) cut somewhere or 2) go out of business faster. You might manage to survive by maintaining quality and even adding things if the audience is large enough and you can pull from competing publications. (Although, in some cases, the cuts are things readers don't see -- e.g., allowing advertisers to place contributed content, or ensuring you don't publish anything that upsets the remaining advertisers...)
>That's overly simplistic, in this case.
I'm not making an argument, just paraphrasing from the article.
on edit: >or ensuring you don't publish anything that upsets the remaining advertisers
I think most definitions of journalistic quality would argue this is a decrease in quality.
I'm not making an argument, just paraphrasing from the article.
on edit: >or ensuring you don't publish anything that upsets the remaining advertisers
I think most definitions of journalistic quality would argue this is a decrease in quality.
I think that's fair. To the degree that someone, somehow, is willing and able to foot the bills, lots of people are willing and able to work hard to put out a quality product. Yes, some have an agenda to push that you may or may not agree with, but a lot of the issue is money at the end of the day.
> I have very little time for reading the print magazines
You had me up to there. "I don't have time" just means "I don't prefer to." You have time to do whatever you really want to do.
You had me up to there. "I don't have time" just means "I don't prefer to." You have time to do whatever you really want to do.
Advertisers were good at figurinr out print ads. While online gives immeadiat conversion results they dont give the much more important gave a feeling oi discomfort resulting in a buy in a year
Others already chipped in the obvious arguments (onlinereading, other hobbies). I want to talk about a successful magazine instead: Retro Gamer UK. It's still alive and kicking and well worth a read. It started as an "also-ran" between all other gaming magazines from the publisher but now it's the best running and one of the only ones left. Why is that? Of course because retro gamers grew up reading those magazines and love to do it again. But also because the articles are really great. Why? Because they interview the developers and research the topics (games) quite well. And the developers also have no worries to talk about stuff that didn't work out (they don't really have to sell the game or their extinct studio anymore). And of course with these "scopes" (and the retro gaming niche) they make a type of content that is quite difficult to find online. Much easier to just read the magazine (of course an online/PDF version exists as well...).
Another advantage is that the content of an issue of the magazine doesn't really get old.
Another advantage is that the content of an issue of the magazine doesn't really get old.
I agree! I can't find the level of depth that Retro Gamer delivers anywhere online.
There is a resurgence of small-run print zines which lean into the strengths of print as consumed alongside digital content
MagCulture [1] has 600 zines in stock and Printed Matter [2] has nearly 8,000
At present I'm enjoying n+1, The Baffler, Granta and The Fence
Counter-intuitively, a zine can be an easier way for writers and creators to get niche/unusual content seen than battling the algorithm online
[1] https://magculture.com 270 St John Street, London
[2] https://www.printedmatter.org 231 11th Avenue, Manhattan
MagCulture [1] has 600 zines in stock and Printed Matter [2] has nearly 8,000
At present I'm enjoying n+1, The Baffler, Granta and The Fence
Counter-intuitively, a zine can be an easier way for writers and creators to get niche/unusual content seen than battling the algorithm online
[1] https://magculture.com 270 St John Street, London
[2] https://www.printedmatter.org 231 11th Avenue, Manhattan
I used to subscribe to general news magazines, and of course there's some obvious reasons for it:
- Competition for attention
- Emerging miche magazines
- Conservatism of investigative reportage
- Shorter news cycles due to social media
- Journalism becoming partisan
- Opinion pieces and narrative building instead of histories
As a reader, I am more than satisfied with the current state of niche magazines (e.g., guitar, drones, motosports, and lifestyle), where the access to the internet in those places became some kind of meta-curation on interesting topics.
For the general magazines, I feel bad about how this trend is going. For instance, in South America, magazines used to cross-communicate with some points of society (Class A, B, and a bit of C), and the rest of the society (Class D and E) used to have some of this work downstream via night news.
Another thing is that wristleblowers knew that the enditorial support in magazines is way higher than in TV news channels, since the latter used to be more compliant with some of the power systems.
Back in the day, it would be impossible for any TV news editor to ignore any history from the magazines (that in this time was upstream), and the lifeblood of this kind of vehicle was to denounce corruption of the government, investigative reportage, and obvious discussions related to societal trends. The sad thing is that only the latter is happening.
As a reader, I am more than satisfied with the current state of niche magazines (e.g., guitar, drones, motosports, and lifestyle), where the access to the internet in those places became some kind of meta-curation on interesting topics.
For the general magazines, I feel bad about how this trend is going. For instance, in South America, magazines used to cross-communicate with some points of society (Class A, B, and a bit of C), and the rest of the society (Class D and E) used to have some of this work downstream via night news.
Another thing is that wristleblowers knew that the enditorial support in magazines is way higher than in TV news channels, since the latter used to be more compliant with some of the power systems.
Back in the day, it would be impossible for any TV news editor to ignore any history from the magazines (that in this time was upstream), and the lifeblood of this kind of vehicle was to denounce corruption of the government, investigative reportage, and obvious discussions related to societal trends. The sad thing is that only the latter is happening.
but good writing isn't worth good money because you can get ok copy free from people who do it for the attention. the magazine business was cool but what made it cool was it was powerful. It isn't now.
business wise, the closest analogy today is podcasts, not because of writing, but they're the curators of the discourse. now Fridman and Rogan are each a one man Atlantic or Harper's, providing the platform for ideas and selling attention and wielding influence on it. we don't need journalists to tell us stories when the people doing the things can just tell their story themselves.
we've lost some of the insight that came from writing as a craft and those insights formed the previous culture and identity, but we get these direct now.
maybe writing polarizes, where only writers who can do fiction well can add any value or insight into anything real.
business wise, the closest analogy today is podcasts, not because of writing, but they're the curators of the discourse. now Fridman and Rogan are each a one man Atlantic or Harper's, providing the platform for ideas and selling attention and wielding influence on it. we don't need journalists to tell us stories when the people doing the things can just tell their story themselves.
we've lost some of the insight that came from writing as a craft and those insights formed the previous culture and identity, but we get these direct now.
maybe writing polarizes, where only writers who can do fiction well can add any value or insight into anything real.
I disagree with the notion that publishers "don't know it". Here I think malice really is a better explanation than incompetence. Or not malice but willful indifference. Investors don't want to be in the business of educating and informing people. They want to be in the business of renting out things that people need, or want so much that it's next door to need. This can't be done with long form journalism. The opportunity in investing in magazines is pure short term gain. Squeeze money out of the brand reputation and recognition, then move on.
> Is there a single web magazine making big bucks?
The Spectator has been growing both in print and online. The editor wrote about this, in the wake of the title's sale, this week:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectators-new-owner...
> In this trade, there is always pressure to go for the digital ‘quick wins’ (clickbait articles, advertorials, etc.) but we rejected this as a false economy – so commercial that it’s uncommercial. It would take us downmarket, deform our character and, ergo, reduce the company’s value. So we went the other way, using our success to double down on the magazine’s finest traditions in the belief that quality of writing matters above all. We did a lot that went against the conventional digital wisdom. We put together a different business model and a unique way of working, based on close collaboration between all departments and journalists equally comfortable with print, digital and broadcast.
> When other publications were shedding sub-editors, we poached the best ones we could find. When newspapers shrank their books sections, we proudly kept Sam Leith’s at ten-plus pages and gave him a podcast. We created a research team who apply perhaps the most robust pre-publication scrutiny on Fleet Street (mindful that it matters more than ever that readers can trust the facts they read). When other weeklies started cutting costs by not printing over Easter and the summer, we put more effort than ever into the issues released in those holiday periods.
> The digital temptations that can lure publications to their grave (‘The world has changed! Look at the clicks! Drop the opera review!’) are dangerous as they come dripping in what looks like supportive data. You can end up not just being edited by algorithm but stripping a publication of nuance, variety and soul. Our belief was that if we innovated, and used the proceeds to double or treble down on what makes The Spectator different, we would maximise the value of the company as well as serve our readers. Much of what we did could be seen as uneconomic on an individual basis – but put it all together and you get a five times valuation uplift.
The Spectator has been growing both in print and online. The editor wrote about this, in the wake of the title's sale, this week:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-spectators-new-owner...
> In this trade, there is always pressure to go for the digital ‘quick wins’ (clickbait articles, advertorials, etc.) but we rejected this as a false economy – so commercial that it’s uncommercial. It would take us downmarket, deform our character and, ergo, reduce the company’s value. So we went the other way, using our success to double down on the magazine’s finest traditions in the belief that quality of writing matters above all. We did a lot that went against the conventional digital wisdom. We put together a different business model and a unique way of working, based on close collaboration between all departments and journalists equally comfortable with print, digital and broadcast.
> When other publications were shedding sub-editors, we poached the best ones we could find. When newspapers shrank their books sections, we proudly kept Sam Leith’s at ten-plus pages and gave him a podcast. We created a research team who apply perhaps the most robust pre-publication scrutiny on Fleet Street (mindful that it matters more than ever that readers can trust the facts they read). When other weeklies started cutting costs by not printing over Easter and the summer, we put more effort than ever into the issues released in those holiday periods.
> The digital temptations that can lure publications to their grave (‘The world has changed! Look at the clicks! Drop the opera review!’) are dangerous as they come dripping in what looks like supportive data. You can end up not just being edited by algorithm but stripping a publication of nuance, variety and soul. Our belief was that if we innovated, and used the proceeds to double or treble down on what makes The Spectator different, we would maximise the value of the company as well as serve our readers. Much of what we did could be seen as uneconomic on an individual basis – but put it all together and you get a five times valuation uplift.
What about relatively new publications with longform writing such as Aeon, Atlas Obscura, Nautilus, or Quanta Magazine?
Quanta magazine is fabulous but it's sponsored by a philanthropic foundation, so perhaps not a good example when discussing the economics of print magazines.
It's currently online only, but I would happily buy a print subscription (I assume I'd be a minority, though).
It's currently online only, but I would happily buy a print subscription (I assume I'd be a minority, though).
A few years back I thought to myself hey, I used to love magazines when I was younger. I've basically completely stopped reading them or thinking about them. There are some with digital editions that are very inexpensive to subscribe to. Maybe they've got some high quality content really targeted to specific interests that I'm not finding on the web.
So I went out to take a look at some magazines both digital and print. It was immediately apparent why they are dying, and it's not just because people read everything on the web for free these days.
Every magazine I checked out was MOSTLY ads. Even during the Super Bowl, the commercials will be less than 1/3 of the total broadcast time. In the magazines the ads took up well over half of the available pages. Who in their right mind would pay money for that?
Magazines back in the day where nothing less than lavish. Elaborate foldouts of maps and photos in NatGeo. In depth strategy guides and customized demo discs on a monthly basis in video game magazines. All that is gone. The modern day magazine is a stack of ads with a few blog posts scattered throughout.
I'm going to guess it's some sort of death spiral. They lose money to the web, so they had less to invest in content and had to take more ads. That resulted in further loss of readership, and so on.
I do believe that a highly targeted and extremely high quality magazine can succeed in the present day. Of course the definition of success won't mean selling millions of copies on newsstands everywhere. It will mean having a loyal subscriber base that provides a largely flat, but sustainable, flow of revenue.
So I went out to take a look at some magazines both digital and print. It was immediately apparent why they are dying, and it's not just because people read everything on the web for free these days.
Every magazine I checked out was MOSTLY ads. Even during the Super Bowl, the commercials will be less than 1/3 of the total broadcast time. In the magazines the ads took up well over half of the available pages. Who in their right mind would pay money for that?
Magazines back in the day where nothing less than lavish. Elaborate foldouts of maps and photos in NatGeo. In depth strategy guides and customized demo discs on a monthly basis in video game magazines. All that is gone. The modern day magazine is a stack of ads with a few blog posts scattered throughout.
I'm going to guess it's some sort of death spiral. They lose money to the web, so they had less to invest in content and had to take more ads. That resulted in further loss of readership, and so on.
I do believe that a highly targeted and extremely high quality magazine can succeed in the present day. Of course the definition of success won't mean selling millions of copies on newsstands everywhere. It will mean having a loyal subscriber base that provides a largely flat, but sustainable, flow of revenue.
> Every magazine I checked out was MOSTLY ads
I think you might be looking at this situation through rose-colored glasses. When I was a kid in the 2000s, I loved reading PopSci and I distinctly remember at least 30-40% of it being ads throughout most of the magazine. And then, the last 20+ pages were all ads.
Looking even further back, I've had to do some research on 90s vintage computers lately, and every edition of PCMag I've dug through has been laden with ads. It's even more packed with ads than I remember PopSci being 10-15 years later.
Maybe it wasn't mostly ads, but it wasn't far off.
What has changed is the annoyances ads cause. Online ads load slowly, screw with the layout while you're reading, and are overall much more disruptive to the reading experience than a print ad could ever be.
I think you might be looking at this situation through rose-colored glasses. When I was a kid in the 2000s, I loved reading PopSci and I distinctly remember at least 30-40% of it being ads throughout most of the magazine. And then, the last 20+ pages were all ads.
Looking even further back, I've had to do some research on 90s vintage computers lately, and every edition of PCMag I've dug through has been laden with ads. It's even more packed with ads than I remember PopSci being 10-15 years later.
Maybe it wasn't mostly ads, but it wasn't far off.
What has changed is the annoyances ads cause. Online ads load slowly, screw with the layout while you're reading, and are overall much more disruptive to the reading experience than a print ad could ever be.
Yep. And the ads were often good. I read Popular Science and Popular Mechanics growing up. The ads weren't just some bland spec sheet, they went into the technology or engineering behind whatever it was advertising. The ads could be as good as the articles. Simpler ads would at least try to be clever.
Magazine ads don't bother me, especially if they're on-topic (e.g. PC ads in a PC magazine.) I find ads in vintage PC magazines to be particularly interesting and fun.
But web ads are typically obnoxious, intrusive, and off-topic. Delivery formats such as pop-up windows and auto-playing video are so disruptive that there are browser settings to block them – settings which web advertisers work tirelessly to subvert. The commercial web has become unusable without ad blockers.
But web ads are typically obnoxious, intrusive, and off-topic. Delivery formats such as pop-up windows and auto-playing video are so disruptive that there are browser settings to block them – settings which web advertisers work tirelessly to subvert. The commercial web has become unusable without ad blockers.
I do recall a handful of the full-page PopSci "back of the mag" ads being articles in their own right, and sometimes they were as well-written as the actual articles written by PopSci. Although those were always the exception, rather than the norm, I feel like that kind of thing is just gone.
That said, I wonder if it's caused by limits in the ad delivery methods we use today, rather than some industry wide lack of interest in making quality ads. I can't conceive of how such an ad would be delivered through Google, for example. Meta? Maybe.
That said, I wonder if it's caused by limits in the ad delivery methods we use today, rather than some industry wide lack of interest in making quality ads. I can't conceive of how such an ad would be delivered through Google, for example. Meta? Maybe.
There are a lot of people here who react viscerally to any advertising in any form. I'd point that Computer Shopper was a huge magazine with some pro-forma often low-rent writing that existed as basically a vehicle to deliver ads to people who couldn't really get that information any other way. PC Mag/Byte/etc. was higher quality editorial but still had a lot of advertising.
Indeed. As I recall Computer Shopper's articles were the legally minimum percentage of the magazine to make it qualify as a periodical rather than a catalog (US postage rates between the two differed, with periodicals being cheaper). We subscribed for the ads, but some of the articles (like Don Lancaster teaching writing Postscript manually to create figures) were interesting.
You take what you can as a freelancer and I'm sure I know a number of folks who wrote for a the magazine at some point or other and did a fine job. But you certainly didn't subscribe or buy issues for the articles.
> I think you might be looking at this situation through rose-colored glasses. When I was a kid in the 2000s, I loved reading PopSci and I distinctly remember at least 30-40% of it being ads throughout most of the magazine. And then, the last 20+ pages were all ads.
I was a nerdy kid in the early 80s, and when I wasn't hanging out in computer shops and electronics junk shops, I was often in WH Smith [1] browsing the sci/tech magazines. My recollection is that they were pretty good in terms of articles, and even many of the adverts were interesting. I suspect this was because (before the net) it was hard to find out about stuff that wasn't mainstream: so ads for telescopes or chem kits or single-board computers seemed kind of exotic. Electronics mags with pages of ads listing components were information. And you could actually buy the RS Catalogue there - which, while not a magazine, had so much interesting stuff in it.
And a bit later, Computer Shopper with endless pages of densely-packed ads listing ram chips and cpus and cmos logic chips, and the ink that came off on your fingers...
So the ads were often an important learning resource back then. At least for kids with limited resources like I was.
[1] National chain of newsagents here in the UK.
I was a nerdy kid in the early 80s, and when I wasn't hanging out in computer shops and electronics junk shops, I was often in WH Smith [1] browsing the sci/tech magazines. My recollection is that they were pretty good in terms of articles, and even many of the adverts were interesting. I suspect this was because (before the net) it was hard to find out about stuff that wasn't mainstream: so ads for telescopes or chem kits or single-board computers seemed kind of exotic. Electronics mags with pages of ads listing components were information. And you could actually buy the RS Catalogue there - which, while not a magazine, had so much interesting stuff in it.
And a bit later, Computer Shopper with endless pages of densely-packed ads listing ram chips and cpus and cmos logic chips, and the ink that came off on your fingers...
So the ads were often an important learning resource back then. At least for kids with limited resources like I was.
[1] National chain of newsagents here in the UK.
Yes, paper catalogs had high information and education content e.g.
the Whole Earth Catalog in the US or the IKEA catalog in Europe are
cult items.
There are also different national prior probabilities for reading magazines as a habit in different cultures: for example, both the UK and Germany had a strong computer magazine culture, whereas in the US there was less of it (Byte and Dr Dobb's Journal being notable exceptions). The German "c't - magazin für computer technik" is still Europe's largest computer magazine (https://www.heise.de/ct). Europe also has comic magazines by Disney (featuring Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse. & co.), which never existed in the US, unlike the animation films.
There are also different national prior probabilities for reading magazines as a habit in different cultures: for example, both the UK and Germany had a strong computer magazine culture, whereas in the US there was less of it (Byte and Dr Dobb's Journal being notable exceptions). The German "c't - magazin für computer technik" is still Europe's largest computer magazine (https://www.heise.de/ct). Europe also has comic magazines by Disney (featuring Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse. & co.), which never existed in the US, unlike the animation films.
Ha, I used to work at WH Smith HQ in Swindon. The warehouse people used to nick the cover disks from the magazines and sell them. And each loo on each floor had a fresh new porn mag in the cistern!
Don't even get me on Tales of Farthing Wood which caused a national shitstorm...
Don't even get me on Tales of Farthing Wood which caused a national shitstorm...
> Every magazine I checked out was MOSTLY ads. Even during the Super Bowl, the commercials will be less than 1/3 of the total broadcast time. In the magazines the ads took up well over half of the available pages. Who in their right mind would pay money for that?
The purpose of a lot of the trade press and hobby press is to be an interesting carrier for ads. Literally a list of names and addresses where you can buy things to improve your business or improve the passing of your free time, a bunch of articles talking about new ways to maximize your usage of the things in the ads, and a bunch of articles joking about how goofy the job or hobby and the people involved in it are.
Also important to mention that these are the magazines that are doing the best. They're probably the only thing that people will pay for. And they have to pay less for them, because of all the ads and how well they deliver.
I want to see ads for oscilloscopes in my electronics magazine. I'm also not so dumb that I think the ones advertised will always reflect the best of the market, and to think that the magazines don't have relationships with their advertisers that affect them editorially. Because on the other hand I know that a hobby or trade magazine knows that they're risking their own reputation if they recommend stuff that doesn't work or allow that stuff to advertise. Not like online, where people have no idea what they're being paid to propagate; it's being pulled from some algorithmic ad market that no one claims responsibility for.
The purpose of a lot of the trade press and hobby press is to be an interesting carrier for ads. Literally a list of names and addresses where you can buy things to improve your business or improve the passing of your free time, a bunch of articles talking about new ways to maximize your usage of the things in the ads, and a bunch of articles joking about how goofy the job or hobby and the people involved in it are.
Also important to mention that these are the magazines that are doing the best. They're probably the only thing that people will pay for. And they have to pay less for them, because of all the ads and how well they deliver.
I want to see ads for oscilloscopes in my electronics magazine. I'm also not so dumb that I think the ones advertised will always reflect the best of the market, and to think that the magazines don't have relationships with their advertisers that affect them editorially. Because on the other hand I know that a hobby or trade magazine knows that they're risking their own reputation if they recommend stuff that doesn't work or allow that stuff to advertise. Not like online, where people have no idea what they're being paid to propagate; it's being pulled from some algorithmic ad market that no one claims responsibility for.
Especially because if you are engaged in a particular trade/hobby, a lot of your time is devoted to actually working on the thing. There is no way to organically find out if Haas has released a new machine or Sandvick has new tooling unless 1) a sales rep visits you 2) you see an ad for it in the trade pubs 3) you attend a show/expo.
Guess what! All those three things is marketing. There is no other way to get some information out there adults simply do not have the time. This results in a lot of games, but what part of human life doesn't? We are critical thinking creatures, we can judge for ourselves.
Guess what! All those three things is marketing. There is no other way to get some information out there adults simply do not have the time. This results in a lot of games, but what part of human life doesn't? We are critical thinking creatures, we can judge for ourselves.
Exactly. Yes. The world has changed in many ways but the "all ads are evil" crowd just doesn't represent how people at least historically looked at trades/hobby/etc. magazine content. The ads were part of that content.
As you say, lots of conflicts of interest etc. but ads were part of the package.
As you say, lots of conflicts of interest etc. but ads were part of the package.
> Every magazine I checked out was MOSTLY ads
Ads were always a big part of it, and indeed pre-internet were a reason to buy a hobby magazine. They carried value in a way they perhaps don't any longer - not because the print ads are different but because access to supplier websites + search engines is more useful.
Ads were always a big part of it, and indeed pre-internet were a reason to buy a hobby magazine. They carried value in a way they perhaps don't any longer - not because the print ads are different but because access to supplier websites + search engines is more useful.
> a highly targeted and extremely high quality magazine can succeed in the present day. Of course the definition of success won't mean selling millions of copies on newsstands everywhere. It will mean having a loyal subscriber base that provides a largely flat, but sustainable, flow of revenue.
You've just described The New Yorker. (Full disclosure: I'm a loyal subscriber, even though I no longer manage to read every word of every issue.)
You've just described The New Yorker. (Full disclosure: I'm a loyal subscriber, even though I no longer manage to read every word of every issue.)
Magazines, especially trade press, always had a huge volume of ads. We used to joke when I was a full-time industry analyst that the computer trade press mostly formulaically (including getting quotes from some analyst or other) was about filling the "ad hole."
I do pay for a couple of expensive magazine/newspaper subscriptions but mostly I just have so many other options that I'm mostly not even going to skim a magazine cover to cover.
I do pay for a couple of expensive magazine/newspaper subscriptions but mostly I just have so many other options that I'm mostly not even going to skim a magazine cover to cover.
I subscribed to magazines in the 1970s-80s and really felt I was getting my money's worth. Sure, there was lots of ads, but there was also lots of great stuff. I remember magazines getting thinner, glossier, and more ad-laden in the 1990s so that I just gave up on them. This happened mostly before the Internet.
It'll be interesting to see how substack tries to hold these authors and avoids fading into the background. Their monetization options are the best in the industry right now, but I wonder how authors feel about the network effect they receive. I'm surprised Chris Hughes didn't find a way to pivot New Republic to a substack competitor somehow.
There's just so much volume out there I subscribe to some newsletters and podcasts but don't pay for any of them. There just isn't a lot that is individually must have.
I subscribe to a ton as well. The production quality isn't anything like NYT or Rolling Stone used to be. That's probably coming. But it'll be interesting to find a sweet spot in between tiktok videos and well written and beautifully presented information. That's a hard place to be consistently.
NYT (and The Economist) are IMO pretty good but they're expensive--especially relative to free. If I were in school or just out of it, I probably wouldn't pay for them like I did for Time and Newsweek when that was more or less your source of news other than subscribing to the big city newspaper or watching the evening news.
There are good magazines out there but overall there's been a decline in quality and, at least in the political/cultural arena, they're mostly some rich person's pet project--though that was historically also the case to some degree.
There are good magazines out there but overall there's been a decline in quality and, at least in the political/cultural arena, they're mostly some rich person's pet project--though that was historically also the case to some degree.
The price of The Economist has increased rather dramatically in the past few years. In 2012, a print subscription was 137 CAD/yr (183 CAD/yr in 2024 dollars). In 2024 a print subscription is now 429 CAD/yr.
honest-broker is the only Substack publication I have found to consistently hold my attention. Reading Gioia's writing feels like eating nutritious food.
I am most likely ignorant, however. Are there any other Substack publications of the same quality?
I am most likely ignorant, however. Are there any other Substack publications of the same quality?
It may not be Substack, but I recommend Stratechery.
Sometimes, I miss paper-based magazines, and when I have an opportunity to stay and look through newsstands in supermarkets or bookstores, I do, and sometimes buy. Harvard Business Review is good one. Wired is sucks, one of the worst.
Does anyone know good magazines about tech/programming/engineering?
I found CODE Magazine [*], which looks promising, but it is primarily about C#/.NET.
[*] https://www.codemag.com/magazine/
Does anyone know good magazines about tech/programming/engineering?
I found CODE Magazine [*], which looks promising, but it is primarily about C#/.NET.
[*] https://www.codemag.com/magazine/
I would just like to record for posterity in the comments that this discussion occurred simultaneously with a relevant story about how MrBeast games the tube of yous
I'd counter that with the rise of high quality niche publications [0]
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/16/business/media/outdoors-p...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/16/business/media/outdoors-p...
This has impacted the photography industry profoundly. Not only the magazine content but also all the ads that were produced.
Photography budgets have been plummeting for years and there are less paid gigs now than there were even a decade ago.
Photography budgets have been plummeting for years and there are less paid gigs now than there were even a decade ago.
I like that he raises a comparison with the big Hollywood media companies, yet fails to remember the recent strikes that reminded us that the studios don't want to pay their writers either.
The irony here is that Ted Gioia is at the very top of the power law distribution of writers' incomes: he makes a ton of money on Substack and is very vocal about it. He deserves it all, too, just to be clear.
However, most writers are way out on the long tail of the curve, making next to nothing. I subscribe free to 100's of them, but "upgrade to Paid"??? Nope, nope.
> Nowadays authors at that level would be on Substack, or some other similar platform. That’s because their name would be their personal brand, and they wouldn’t need a periodical—and certainly not a magazine in terminal decline.
They ARE on Substack, and a precious few are like you, Ted: making the big bucks.
I'd be willing to pay for an aggregate of 100 or so of them, where their output this week is omitted if they've got nothing. The catch is, I wouldn't pay huge money for that. This isn't going to bring back the days of Readers Digest and Esquire. There's just too much on the Web that's free to occupy my attention.
However, most writers are way out on the long tail of the curve, making next to nothing. I subscribe free to 100's of them, but "upgrade to Paid"??? Nope, nope.
> Nowadays authors at that level would be on Substack, or some other similar platform. That’s because their name would be their personal brand, and they wouldn’t need a periodical—and certainly not a magazine in terminal decline.
They ARE on Substack, and a precious few are like you, Ted: making the big bucks.
I'd be willing to pay for an aggregate of 100 or so of them, where their output this week is omitted if they've got nothing. The catch is, I wouldn't pay huge money for that. This isn't going to bring back the days of Readers Digest and Esquire. There's just too much on the Web that's free to occupy my attention.
This hit home hard:
> Imagine if you owned the Lakers or the Yankees, and put all the emphasis on the team brand—but kept reducing the pay to actual players. You might continue to sell tickets over the short and even medium term. But to survive over the long haul, you eventually need to support the team brand with commensurate talent at each position—and that talent needs to be nurtured and paid more than peanuts.
There was a time people paid for a cable connection and channels. You might pay extra for more channels, but that was about it. Then we all watched online via Netflix. Then HBo, Hulu, Skyshowtime, Disneyplus and AppleTV+ all came along and now we just shuffle through these subscriptions to see the stuff we want to see, but not whole year round. Most of the people I know will have a subscription for one or two month and then shuffle to the next.
If magazines where that easy, you just subscribe to a separate month or you just buy loose articles from past issues, they could still be making money.
> Imagine if you owned the Lakers or the Yankees, and put all the emphasis on the team brand—but kept reducing the pay to actual players. You might continue to sell tickets over the short and even medium term. But to survive over the long haul, you eventually need to support the team brand with commensurate talent at each position—and that talent needs to be nurtured and paid more than peanuts.
There was a time people paid for a cable connection and channels. You might pay extra for more channels, but that was about it. Then we all watched online via Netflix. Then HBo, Hulu, Skyshowtime, Disneyplus and AppleTV+ all came along and now we just shuffle through these subscriptions to see the stuff we want to see, but not whole year round. Most of the people I know will have a subscription for one or two month and then shuffle to the next.
If magazines where that easy, you just subscribe to a separate month or you just buy loose articles from past issues, they could still be making money.
Well, or we subscribe to a few services and that's plenty of content and we don't actually care enough to switch around because we don't actually need to watch some specific show. At least that's my situation.
In general, people don't want to pay for individual content.
In general, people don't want to pay for individual content.
Are magazines still wildly popular in Japan? I have not been there in years now but I sense they still are. Maybe someone can set me straight.
https://shuppankagaku.com/statistics/mook/
According to this, magazine sales shrunk a lot from it's peak in 1997.
According to this, magazine sales shrunk a lot from it's peak in 1997.
This is a great example of creative destruction. Back before the internet took over distribution, it took a small army of typesetters, graphic designers, printers, delivery services, etc. to publish and distribute magazines. There was simply no way an individual, or even a small group, could scale production and distribution. The logical extension of the old model would be for Google or Meta (who now own distribution) to hire staff writers in order to improve ad revenue. So far, they don't think they need it - turns out they can sell ads just fine with the low-cost garbage spewed by your crazy uncle. We will see if the direct-pay model of Substack has staying power before enshittification takes over. I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer.
> I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer.
Exactly. I might go for some package of 100 or so writers, with only their best stuff that week/month. But the reality is, the writers still wouldn't be making all that much money; not as much as Ted is.
It would be similar to being in the chorus for a Broadway show with Patti Lupone: she's making a whole bunch; you're at least getting paid.
Exactly. I might go for some package of 100 or so writers, with only their best stuff that week/month. But the reality is, the writers still wouldn't be making all that much money; not as much as Ted is.
It would be similar to being in the chorus for a Broadway show with Patti Lupone: she's making a whole bunch; you're at least getting paid.
That's because the asymmetry of the one-way publication funnel where we can only consume has been replaced by a more symmetric ecosystem where users contribute content. Because they donate their content to platforms, they make the platform owners rich - they get the attention, so they also get the ad revenue, but they don't need to pay for quality content because users are just fine with (other) users' contributed content.
If there had been zero-install tools for self-publishing early on instead of the centralized Facebooks and Mediums, perhaps things could have gone differently.
If there had been zero-install tools for self-publishing early on instead of the centralized Facebooks and Mediums, perhaps things could have gone differently.
Just look at all the new magazines at a bookstore. There are at least 10 Taylor Swift magazines. Trump has at least two magazines about him. There's plenty of growth in the gun and prepper department. Food magazines are available in quantity.
Magazines are still around, but they're addressed to niches.
Magazines are still around, but they're addressed to niches.
I must say I never really understood the economics of newsstand subscriptions. Even when I probably subscribed to 10+ magazines I almost never bought single copies unless I was quoted in one.
Magazines were always mostly relatively niche outside of maybe a few fairly general interest news and personality mags.
Magazines were always mostly relatively niche outside of maybe a few fairly general interest news and personality mags.
I used to edit a newsstand leisure magazine here in the UK. It was founded in the 1970s. We sold about 18,000 copies a month in our peak, making us the market leader.
I'm not the editor any more (I went off to do something else) but the magazine is still going. It won't surprise you to learn that it sells much less than it used to.
But that's not because the magazine has got worse. It hasn't. The writing is still as good as ever, the news reporting still pretty sharp. It's not because the market has changed. It's not because you can get the same information online for free. Much to my amazement, in 20+ years, no one has really catered for this particular market online - there's a lot of chuntering on forums and Facebook groups, but no one really doing compelling content. We were turning over £1m+ a year. I don't think anyone is even turning over £50k writing about this subject online.
So what changed? I think it's ultimately about attention. When I edited the magazine (c. 2010), people still chose to spend part of their leisure time reading about one of their hobbies. We were a fun way to do that. Today, people don't need to spend £5 to happily while away a few hours: they can just scroll through their phones. The magazine habit has gone.
Crucially, it's not that the information has gone online. It really hasn't. I read all the various forums and groups, and still when the magazine plops onto my doormat every month, I read it and find a load of stuff I didn't know. It's just that the time that was once filled with reading magazines is now filled with something else.