What the heck is a magazine anyway?
As I’ve been using my iPad more and more to read “newspapers” and “magazines”, I started wondering, what the heck is a magazine anyway?
So its content, words, pictures, etc., obviously. Well-written articles. Nice layout. Oh, and they’re printed.
But they’re not only printed anymore. You can read these publications on your laptop or mobile devices on services like Zinio and now publications are creating their own apps.
But here’s the thing. There’s been this other thing that allows us to get well-written articles, content, pictures…oh, and video, and we can interact with it, and share it…it’s called the Internet.
So now we have this thing where magazines and newspapers are trying to cross over. Only, we don’t need them to cross over do we? What’s the point?
Best example is ESPN. You’ve got ESPN The Magazine and you’ve got ESPN.com. Why would I need a digital magazine version of ESPN The Magazine, which is limited content and, like the current issue, is extremely focused on baseball, when I can go to ESPN.com and see a customized homepage of sports I actually like. And see video.
Oh, did I mention that I dislike baseball so much that I recently bought this Major League Boring shirt? Just sayin’.
So my question is, do we really need magazines in digital? I say no. Actually, I say hell no and it annoys me that publishers think that is the option.
I don’t need a virtual flipping of a page so it reminds me of a printed magazine. I think that’s absurd and I say that knowing the iBook app on the iPad does that and so many people think that’s cool. That’s super dumb if you ask me.
Generally, magazine articles are FAR superior to the blog articles that we read daily. They are better researched, fact checked, and more likely to be about the subject as opposed to the author's opinion of the subject.
I have never read ESPN magazine, but yes, I agree with you if it's just the printed form of the website then it deserves to go away.
Newsweek is awesome. The articles are awesome, they present opposing viewpoints on subjects. Yeah, they publish the articles on the web, that might be a mistake on their part, but the quality of the average Newsweek article is far and away above the quality of the average blog post.
Except this blog, this blog is great :P
Magazines are what you read when your ipad runs out of juice. :)
I do agree, however, that the notion of virtual page flipping is for the birds. I think often, magazine and newspaper publishers like to or try to have single push button publishing of there content onto the web, from a print layout that was done in InDesign, Quark, or some other page layout app (and remember, there are still a TON of publishers out there that are using legacy publishing systems older than you and I to produce content that have no notion at all of print to web conversion)
But, that being said, i think some sites have done a good job of publishing there content on the web while still maintaining a print presence. The ones that i like are sites like http://www.nytimes.com and my local PostGazette.com. I still pick up the print versions as i'm able, but also go to the web for more timely content.
Ricardo makes an excellent point about the quality of the magazine and newspaper articles as well.
i'm still 50/50 on this blog ;)
But to your point, Newsweek still has the content on their website, so do I really need an app? And should Newsweek spend time making an app and website content/design, making them have to update and maintain two entities? Or should they move everything to their website, making sure it renders effectively in different browsers and on different devices, and forget about this whole magazine business?
Good content is good content. And they won't be able to monetize the printed pub to the extent they are much longer, so they're going to have to adjust somehow.
The problem is, how do they monetize the website? And yes, I know that's the $1,000,000 question for all the news types sites.
The simple answer as to why they maintain the magazine is that's the only proven way they have of making money.
If they only went to the website, they'd stop making the money they need to make, we'd lose their awesome columnists and reporters, and I'd be a sad panda.
The other thing I like about a magazine format is, the editors have decided what is relevant. It's kind of like the original “follow” from Twitter :) I am “following” the editors, and they are giving me the articles that I think are worth reading.
Although that can, at times, be a detriment, most of the time I view it as a chance to read about a subject I might have glossed over otherwise.
There may be some convergence, but here's how I'd break it down:
Newspapers contain items I can read in a few minutes…5 minutes at most usually.
Magazines contain pieces I can read in less than an hour.
Books take days to read.
Quality, of course depends on the publication and author.
I think its useful to know what you're getting into when you click on a link and start reading…using these three labels generally conforms to what is a shared understanding we all have for how in-depth a piece is and how much time we need to spend on it.
So, to answer your question, a magazine is a grouping of medium length articles. In the paper world it may come once a week. Online it may have articles added whenever the publisher decides.
What do you think about magazines driving you to the web for additional content, that extends your reading? I've seen a few magazines take this approach where let's say they have a featured interview and after I finish reading I can go to their website to see the questions and answers that didn't make it in the print version (kind of like the bonus discs you get when you buy DVDs).
Actually I'm a huge fan of that approach. There will always be a need for printed content and there should be a digital component to extend that content.
What I'm more talking about is simply replicating that experience online, in the same format and manner as the printed piece. That, to me, is what is absurd and backwards about where media is heading at this moment.
Actually I'm a huge fan of that approach. There will always be a need for printed content and there should be a digital component to extend that content.
What I'm more talking about is simply replicating that experience online, in the same format and manner as the printed piece. That, to me, is what is absurd and backwards about where media is heading at this moment.
The added benefit of that as well is the richer experience that the web can provide. I'm certainly stalwart supporter of print (call it job security) in any medium, but the ability to draw users to additional digital content is really a premo feature.
But, Jeff, to answer the original question, Yes, i think it's ridiculous that a “Digital Magazine” is just the same content in some app wrapper. (that you have to constantly download the updates for. don't even get me started on that, Apple Updater…).
You touch on what I think will be a key question in the iPad era: What will the difference be between consuming content on an app vs on the Web? If publishers’ answer is, “The former is the only way for us to get paid,” they’re in big trouble. I do think there’s some potential value in curated content, but publishers shouldn’t overestimate that appeal, especially if readers are forced to make other tradeoffs in order to get it, such as price and timing, the latter of which I think has been overlooked in all the coverage. Magazines seem to want to stick to their current model of putting together a week’s worth of content and then releasing it all at once in their iPad app. But that’s clearly a print legacy that makes no sense online.
To take one example, Sports Illustrated will occasionally get caught out when a major sports event such as the World Series ends on a Tuesday or Wednesday, after that week’s issue has already gone to press. They can run the story the following week, but by then it will already seem dated. (In fact, this is exactly what happened when the Red Sox won in ’04).
So let’s imagine an all-digital future in which SI “publishes” their iPad app on the same schedule they had previously used for their magazine. Do you think they’ll sit by and let a scenario like that play out again for no good reason other than a now-meaningless production schedule? On the other hand, if the app has no schedule, then how exactly is it different from SI.com?
I've been wanting to comment on this for a few days now, but it has taken me some time to organize my rant.
I have a love-hate relationship with the print industry. I'm not going to lie, I don't remember the last time I picked up an actual printed copy of a newspaper to read it. (I occasionally picked up a copy of The Red & Black for the crossword and sudoku, but that doesn't count.) Like most people, I get the majority of my news from the Internet, mobile sites, and course, Twitter.
But I feel differently about magazines.
Having worked on a magazine staff will do that to you. A year of my life was dedicated to The Athens Blur Magazine, a venture which the editors and I put to rest in February 2010. Blur's ultimate downfall was not lack of support of the print product, but lack of funding for the printing. Almost all revenue from ad sales went to our Virginia based publisher.
Even though Blur is no longer in print, it's a product that I did and will always have complete faith in. And, for Blur, a digital presence was a necessity. Blur's ultimate goal was to be the go-to source in the Athens community for information on music. Given that the magazine was only published every 6 weeks it was vital that there be an online presence in order to 1) hold the audience and 2) build credibility.
Yes, we had the virtual page flip courtesy of Issuu that Jeff detests so much. The primary function of the website (designed by yours truly) was not to regurgitate the print product. Yes, we published select articles from the current issue online. A digital presence allowed us to cover all the breaking news that happened between print publications via the “Blogazine.”
Thus, I don't see this cross over as a problem, especially for smaller publications. Crossing over addresses the many ways that people read, and there is no problem in increasing your audience by appealing to more of them, so long as you can do it in a creative way.
Don't say I didn't warn you, because this was a rant. After having my eyes almost bleed after many days staring at InDesign into the wee hours of the morning in the name of print product, I think I've earned it.
I have to say that I agree and disagree with you. I just graduated from journalism school where I specifically studied magazines, so I am probably biased, but here is my opinion.
While in school and studying journalism, especially the last two years, it was hard to ignore people's negative comments about print publication's fate. I constantly hear that everything will be online soon and that actual magazines and newspapers are doomed to fail. I can't say these people are wrong. I don't have a crystal ball and have no idea what the future holds. But these people aren't necessarily right. Yes, a lot, actually most, people are online for the majority of the day and are checking their news on the internet. But it is a fact that people still like to physically hold a magazine or newspaper in their hands. That being said, I believe the crossover to online version of a magazine versus just a website caters to people who appreciate holding a magazine or flipping through the morning paper everyday. It isn't just online content, but literally what they would be reading just transferred to a screen. These online versions of publications might even save jobs for those in the publishing field.
I have to say that I agree and disagree with you. I just graduated from journalism school where I specifically studied magazines, so I am probably biased, but here is my opinion.
While in school and studying journalism, especially the last two years, it was hard to ignore people's negative comments about print publication's fate. I constantly hear that everything will be online soon and that actual magazines and newspapers are doomed to fail. I can't say these people are wrong. I don't have a crystal ball and have no idea what the future holds. But these people aren't necessarily right. Yes, a lot, actually most, people are online for the majority of the day and are checking their news on the internet. But it is a fact that people still like to physically hold a magazine or newspaper in their hands. That being said, I believe the crossover to online version of a magazine versus just a website caters to people who appreciate holding a magazine or flipping through the morning paper everyday. It isn't just online content, but literally what they would be reading just transferred to a screen. These online versions of publications might even save jobs for those in the publishing field.
The idea of having the flipping that we are used to with printed magazines happen on the digital screen seems very archaic to me. But maybe I'm not embracing the idea that doing that will be a much more comfortable bridge for people who are moving from printed content to digital content.
Great points Lauren, appreciate the comment!
[…] So after social (which is happening today) and mobile (which is just really starting to get interesting), the next area that I believe is going to change everything is interactive TV. The idea that the big screen in our living room is essentially a dumb terminal, broadcasting to us a limited amount of non-interactive content is absurd when you think about it. That huge screen is connected to all the data and power you could ask for, meanwhile I’m sitting on the couch holding an iPad that isn’t connected to anything yet connects me to everything and everyone. Anyone that doesn’t see those two mediums merging probably needs to keep working on saving newspapers and magazines. […]