Mr. Magazine

Are you ready to give some high fives for two magazines that have a combined circulation of over 2 million copies a month and do not have a single page of advertising*? Are you ready to give some high fives for two magazines that concentrate on customers who count, children age 2 through 12? Are you ready to give some high fives for two magazines that were launched in two different centuries and in both cases never sold a page of advertising? Well, I guess you are ready to give high fives to Highlights and Highlights High Five magazines, two children’s magazines that have been providing “Fun with a Purpose” for millions of children since the first issue of Highlights was published in June 1946.

In this second report on “Another Myth Shattered: Kids Don’t Read” I asked Christine French Clark, the magazines’ editor in chief, seven questions about the status of children’s magazines, ink on paper, digital editions, the future of print and her efforts to unite the children magazine editors. Chris Clark wants to “create a kind of fraternity of children’s magazine people (since we don’t seem to fit with MPA (Magazine Publishers of America) or ASME (American Society of Magazine Editors)–with the belief that if we “raise the waters, all our boats will rise.”

So how does Ms. Clark view the status of children’s magazines today? “I’ve never seen such passion and determination on the part of children’s editors to create content kids want and need. We’re a resilient, determined bunch,” she told me.
Here is the full interview:

Samir Husni: With the internet taking off faster than a speeding bullet, and digital technology moving printed magazines and books out of the front page news, do you think the end is near for children’s printed magazines?

Chris Clark: I don’t think children’s magazines are headed toward extinction any time soon. So far, we haven’t seen any new technology that comes close enough to replicating the experience of reading a colorful, graphics-rich, ink-on-paper children’s magazine. And, for a kid, mail is alluring. Part of the fun of subscribing to a print magazine is finding it in your mailbox–addressed to you. For younger kids, each new issue is an invitation to snuggle with a parent or an older sibling to experience together the pleasure of turning the pages of an illustrated magazine. For older kids reading independently, their connection to a favorite magazine may be intensely personal. I remember as a 12-year-old snatching my favorite magazine from the mailbox–Calling All Girls–and going straight to the privacy of my bedroom to devour it. Many kids write and tell us that they behave similarly.

SH: Do you know whether it makes a difference for kids to read from a laptop, digital device or a printed magazine or book? Any studies you are aware of? etc. etc.

CC: I’m sure educators and researchers are scrambling to acquire more understanding of the effects of digital media on kids. I’ve read a little of this research, but I haven’t seen much consensus yet. Scholastic released a report a few years ago that suggested that the majority of kids who read preferred physical books over reading books on computers or digital devices. But we probably wouldn’t have to look too hard to find a study that suggests otherwise. Right now, the Joan Ganz Cooney Center is focused on understanding the effect of digital devices for children’s mobile learning. That’s interesting and important–but maybe a little different from researching how kids want to read for fun.

Highlights, too, is working hard to understand new and emerging technologies and how kids receive them. But we’re not over here wringing our hands and fretting–maybe because we’ve long thought of ourselves as being more than just a magazine publisher. We’re a company promoting a point of view–a philosophy, if you will, about what kids need to grow to become their best selves. Right now, the best way we know to disseminate that philosophy is via ink-on-paper products, but going forward, we’ll focus more on learning how to augment our magazines with Fun with a Purpose content delivered in various ways.

SH: Highlights is approaching its diamond anniversary and High Five is almost three years old, do you think that the so called “collective ADD society” can still focus on magazines that focus on “fun with purpose?” What is the status of both magazines today?

CC: Not only can kids still focus on Fun with a Purpose, but they’re also hungry for it.

Our reader mail–and we get a lot (three or four thousand e-mails and letters monthly)–tells us that kids like to engage in content that arouses their curiosity, prompts them to think, draws out their creativity, makes them feel smart, and is fun to read. If the presentation is right, kids most certainly have an appetite for content that is substantive.

Both of our magazines are doing well. High Five took off like a rocket three years ago, and is still flying high. Highlights and High Five have a combined paid circulation of more than 2 million.

SH: For the last two years you have been hosting a retreat for children’s magazine editors from across the country. What is the purpose of the retreat? Its goals and reasons to exist? What have you learned so far from the “collective minds” at such a retreat?

CC: Actually, last September was the third annual gathering of children’s magazine editors (and art directors). I started the retreat because I felt children’s magazine editors have been almost orphaned by the industry. Because most of children’s magazines are not advertising driven–and some titles are very small and niche–we don’t seem to fit with MPA or ASME. (In fact, MPA officially defined a magazine as a publication that accepts advertising. Where does that leave us? What is Highlights, if not a magazine?) We face some of the same challenges magazines targeted at adults face–but we also have issues that are unique to our category. I thought it was important for children’s magazine editors to have a venue where we could regularly gather to exchange ideas and network. I was hoping to create a kind of fraternity of children’s magazine people–with the belief that if we “raise the waters, all our boats will rise.” If, by working together we can strengthen the category of children’s magazines by raising our profile among parents, grandparents, teachers, and librarians, we’ll all benefit. And surely kids who grow up thinking magazines are fun and interesting and worthwhile will become adults who read magazines–so the whole industry stands to gain if children’s magazines remain strong as a category.

Each year, attendance at our retreat grows. Each year, another children’s magazine is represented. Last year, we met with more than two dozen folks from children’s magazines big and small, in the U.S. and in Canada.

SH: How would you describe today’s children’s magazine marketplace? Is it in a state of growth or retreat (no pun intended)?

CC: Certainly, many children’s magazines have struggled this past year. Everybody is trying to cut costs–whether it be by reducing frequency, trim size, page count, or staff. Sadly, Nickelodeon closed. But I have to say that in my 30-year children’s magazine career, I’ve never seen such passion and determination on the part of children’s editors to create content kids want and need. We’re a resilient, determined bunch–and, again, I think children’s magazines are going to be around for a while. And they just keep getting better and better.

SH: Will it matter where your great content is consumed? On the screen or on the pages of the magazine?

CC: Ultimately, no.

If the technology evolves to where reading on screen is easy on the eyes and affordable for most people–if it can replicate or improve upon the wonderfully visual experience of reading an ink-on-paper magazine–I don’t think it matters. We’ll be where our readers want us to be. Already, we know that the majority of our readers prefer to receive Highlights in magazine format. Some seem to have a greater appetite for finding Highlights content on HighlightsKids.com. But kids online seem to gravitate to the games and activities; they seem less interested in reading stories and articles online. I’ve heard other children’s magazine editors say the same thing about their web sites. So it’s hard to imagine that kids will really want to see a full-issue version of a children’s magazine on their computer or mobile device anytime soon.

SH: What advice you will give for someone coming to you and saying “I want to start a new kid’s magazine…” What would you tell that someone?

CC: Make sure you have an original idea for a magazine–not something already out there. And be resolutely passionate about it. Deep, deep pockets wouldn’t hurt–and neither would business savvy. But I’d also tell this brave soul that he or she would be hard pressed to find work that’s more fun or more satisfying than editing a children’s magazine.

*Highlights did sell a page or two of advertising in the early 1950s, however the founders decided not to pursue that course, unlike the majority of American magazines that shifted to an advertising driven model in the 50s of the last century.
{Truth in Blogging: I have done and continue to do consulting with the Highlights magazine company}

My friend Bruce Brandfon, Vice President and Publisher of Scientific American magazine, referred to the 00 decade as “the lost decade.” He told me that the 21st Century starts on January 1, 2010. So in honor of the beginning of the New Decade (and in Bruce’s words, the new century) here are my ten hopeful statements for 2010 and beyond:

1. Publishing is Believing: A friend of mine from The Netherlands used to remind me every time he saw me, that publishing is believing. Now, more than ever, we need to believe in our publishing business. If we do not believe in what we are doing and if we do not believe that what we are doing have any value, than our business is dead. Publishing is indeed believing and after 2009 we need more believers in the publishing business than we need doubting Thomases. Thank you each and every new magazine launched in 2009 for putting your money where your mouth is.

2. Circulation must make money and not cost money: It is insane when a magazine like Interview costs $9.00 per issue on the newsstands, but sells an entire year (12 issues) for $8.00. There is something wrong with that picture. Publishers must take to heart the advice of one of their own John McCarthy, Senior Vice President, Customer Marketing at Rodale. He told Publishing Executive magazine that “when the brand is hot and the edit is strong” you can command premium prices. So, before selling me that one year subscription for $5 check your brand and your edit and see if your content can and should command a premium price.

3. Virtual is not the same as physical: With the mad dash to every thing digital, we need to stop and take a deeper look into all things physical. E readers and E tablets are similar to the Playstation and Wii electronic games. However, if you’ve spend your holidays shopping for toys for your grandson like I did, you would have noticed that the shelves are still filled with board games, balls (baseball, tennis, football, etc.), trucks, dolls, and many other “so called” traditional toys. Kids, being human, like to play with physical objects in addition to virtual. Playing tennis on Wii is not the same as playing tennis at the tennis court.

4. Celebrate rather than mourn: This should come as no surprise to anyone who follows our industry. These have been the worst of times in the history of the American magazine publishing industry. However, rather than succumbing to what some may think is a dead-end future, industry leaders including the Magazine Publishers of America and The American Society of Magazine Editors should start celebrating the birth of new magazines and should start hosting events to help educate and innovate the business of publishing magazines. I am not asking the MPA or ASME to act like ostriches and bury their heads in the sand, but rather celebrate all the new magazine launches year after year by creating, like the rest of the world, an award for the best magazine launch. Promoting the death of magazines should be left to the prophets of doom and gloom and neither websites should be used as a vehicle to do so. Magazines have a life cycle, like everything else. Even back in 1741 (I doubt that the internet was there yet) the first two American magazines last six and three issues respectively. No one predicted the death of magazines back then.

5. Magazines are not Music: Yes, the word magazine is music to my ears, but every time I hear or read about this magazine company or that publishing entity aiming to be the next iTunes for magazines, I laugh. The only similarity between magazines and music is that they both start with an m. The majority of people do not consume magazines and magazine articles the same way they consume music. Yes, you may not be interested in the entire music album, so you only buy one song, but that one song you listen to over and over, time after time. Buying a single magazine article is more like doing research rather than reading a magazine. Unlike music, magazines are disposable items. You buy them, enjoy the experience and start another one with the next issue. It is not work. It is fun. Buying an article at a time is research. Research is work. It is no longer fun. Let us keep the fun in our magazines and magazine publishing model.

6. Create a Necessary, Sufficient and Relevant magazine: Do not kill the messenger if the message stinks. This has been my mantra last year and will continue to be in 2010 and beyond. A wholesaler friend of mine in Lebanon told me that one of the major problems he sees in today’s magazines in that country is the lack of good content. He said twenty years ago you used to pick up a magazine and really find engaging material in it that will keep you busy for a long time. Now, he says, there is no such content in the majority of magazines. You can easily take the word Lebanon and put your own country and the same is true. Enduring content that is worth the price is what we need and must create in 2010, regardless of the medium. It is the “Must Have” magazines that will survive the future not the “Nice to Have.”

7. Beware of Newspapers becoming Daily Magazines: As newspapers continue to face bigger competition from the internet and television, the smart and futuristic ones are going to become more like daily magazines. I have seen on my overseas trips newspapers that are now published in a standard Time magazine size on a daily basis that read, felt and looked like a weekly magazine. If my future newspaper becomes Time, Business Week, Sports Illustrated and People combined on a daily basis, where will that leave the weeklies? Now is a good time to innovate. Keep in mind the three Es of journalism: Educate, Entertain and Inform. ( I know, the last one starts with an I…but remember the three Rs of education: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, only one starts with R).

8. We are not in the content business: Do not fool yourself into believing that we are just content providers. Magazines are more than content: they are experiences. We are in the experience business that is based on the content of the magazine, the design of the magazine, the feel of the magazine, etc. etc. etc. The experience should be the bull’s eye of our target and not the content. The day we start playing games with what is and what is not a magazine, is the day when we start losing aim of our target and thus losing business. A magazine is more than a storehouse of information. It is the entire “shopping” experience in that “storehouse.”

9. Build new ships, not just lifeboats: One of the major problems in our magazine business is that we’ve spend the last decade building lifeboats and losing focus from our main ship. As some have said, we have used dollars to chase pennies as in the case of the move from print to online. I have no problems with building lifeboats. They are needed. But, I have a problem with doing just that. We need to continue to take care of our main ship and rather than spending most of our time building lifeboats, we need to start building new ships. It is not going to be an either or business anymore. We have to be in it ALL.

10. Before charging online, charge in print: For those magazine companies that print is still their main bread and butter, this should the mantra for the new year. Rather than wasting your time trying to find ways to charge for your content on line, how about finding ways to start charging for your “true and tested” content in print. The return on our investments must start from our products themselves. Just visit any of the countries overseas, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Finland, you name it and see how people are still charging for printed content, building digital presence and making money at the same time. Stop dreaming that the advertising supported model that once ruled in the United States is going to come back the same way it used to be prior to 2008. Those days are long gone. We must value our magazine experience, and the only way I know how to do that is by charging for it. That is the only way we can ensure having customers who count rather than just counting customers.

Well, here you have my ten “hope-to-be-helpful” magazine statements for the new year. Happy 2010 and beyond.

Wishing each and everyone Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, a Very Happy New Year and a Great New Decade.
Mr. Magazine™ and the team.
The blog will resume next week.

Earlier today Eva Dillon, President of Reader’s Digest Community and I had a good phone conversation in response to my earlier blog on the need to reinvent our magazine publishing business model. Ms. Dillon shared with me some of the ways Reader’s Digest is evolving and is addressing the future needs to one of the world’s largest print companies. Ms. Dillon, who is as passionate about the future of our industry as I am, if not more since she has more at stake than I do, wrote me the following letter explaining Reader’s Digest transformation and the plans for the future. What follows is Ms. Dillon’s letter in its entirety:

Dear Samir:

You make an accurate observation in “Must Have” vs. “Nice to Have” magazines: the print industry must transform to respond to the changing media landscape as consumers increasingly want and get their information from multiple sources.

I must point out, however, that you challenge us to come up with a transition plan, one which we (Reader’s Digest) have made public (see Mediaweek, Folio, Delaney Report, Minonline, Mediapost, Crains, DM News), yet then point to elements of that transformation — such as going from 12 to 10 issues a year in order to transition content to digital options — as ills that will result in our demise. With all due respect (and I do mean that), you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

As the largest circulation magazine in the world with 50 editions in 22 languages generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues and healthy margins, I challenge your declaration that “none of the three magazines make much money from their subscribers.” We do. Lots of it. Eighty percent of Reader’s Digest’s revenues come from subscriptions, not advertising. That said, Reader’s Digest has significantly out-performed the advertising marketplace which ended the year collectively down 21% in ads vs. RD’s 7% decline. Seven percent down is the new up in this economy. And to your assertion that we “did not have too many ads in previous months,” Reader’s Digest had more ads in 2009 than 70% of the magazines measured by MIN. You also single out the three magazines as charging a dollar per issue for subscriptions. This is a standard intro offer across the vast majority of magazine publishers, and certainly not the model for the larger part of our (RD’s) sub file, so your point on this front is not well made. Certainly, the fact that consumers do not pay for broadcast or internet (or this very newsletter) does not mean they don’t value the content. Today’s bigger question is how all media will find new models that are not over-reliant on advertising revenues as their sole source, a process we have begun with our own transformation plan.

And finally, to respond to your overall premise about “Must Have” vs. “Nice to Have” magazines: Reader’s Digest continues to have 5.5 million subscribers, one of the top 3 paid magazines in the country. Last year the magazine won the American Society of Magazine Editor’s prestigious General Excellence award. Our subscriber satisfaction and renewal rates are up, as readers focus on the back-to-basics values that have always been key to our appeal. Most important, our brand has long been much more than a magazine, with books, video and music collections that do well for us all over the world, now supplemented with a global website platform being rolled out in 40 countries. With our unique global reach and a culture of sharing content across borders, we have every expectation that we will continue to be a lucrative and relevant brand, and will make a successful transition to deliver content how, when and where our customers want it.

Eva Dillon
President, Reader’s Digest Community

Yesterday, and right after I wrote my blog about “Must Have” magazines rather than “Nice to Have” magazines I received an e mail inviting me to accept a great limited time offer to subscribe to a few magazines for a mere $5 each. I ordered 18, yes 18 magazine-subscriptions at a hefty cost of $90. Don’t rub your eyes, you read and saw that right. 18 magazines for less than a crisp C note (that is a $100 bill for the novice). What is wrong with that picture? A lot. Call me naive, but are we really still dreaming that the ad revenue is going to come back en force and we will go back to counting customers rather than finding customers who count?

How can you create a “Must Have” magazine when you are only charging $5 for an entire year? It is almost the price of one issue of some of the magazines offered in this “holiday special.” In an amazing, yet no longer surprising, this subscription solicitation comes from two major competing magazine companies: the Hearst Corp. and HFM. They joined forces for this “holiday offer.” This amazing deal contained all the magazines published by both companies. The list included such magazines as O, The Oprah magazine, Elle Decor, Woman’s Day, Good Housekeeping… you get the picture. The only magazine that offered half a year instead of a full year for the $5 cost was Elle magazine.
Take a look at the pictures from the offer and judge for yourself: Are we going nuts or there is some rhyme and reason behind the madness. I, for one, think we are still operating in the same state of coma that hit our industry in September of 2008. Every time I see signs of hope from this media company or the other, something big, such as this great offer, kills any signs of hope and tells me that we are still in a deep deep coma. A year for $5 is not a good recipe for success. Feel free to differ!