Mr. Magazine

“Is God Dead?” was the question on the cover of the April 8, 1966 Time magazine. My late brother Khalil was three years ahead of me in our high school, Tripoli (Lebanon) Boys School. Time was required reading for the 11th and 12th grade students at the school. When I saw his copy of the magazine I could not wait for him to finish reading it so I can read it. (I was not allowed to touch it until he is done with it). That issue and that cover left quite an impact on me back then.
Well, last week, visiting the newsstands in Memphis, I had a big flash back to 1966. I saw what looked like the cover of Time from 1966, but it was, in fact, Christianity Today (another magazine I got to know during my high school years in Lebanon thanks for a visiting pastor from America to our Presbyterian church in Tripoli). The cover of the July 2008 CT had the answer for the 42 year-old question Time magazine asked in 1966. In a similar take on Time 1966 cover (same color and design) the CT cover answered the burning question Is God Dead? CT’s answer “God Is Not Dead Yet.” Issue settled for now… but that “Yet” may make room for a more definitive answer in the future, so stay tuned…maybe for another 42 years. At least we are making progress.

My friend Rex Hammock has promised on his blog today that he is going to offer his opinions on the issue of split covers between single copies and subscribers copies of the same magazine. Just for the sake of giving him more examples and points of reference for his comments, here are the two editions of Harper’s Bazaar for July. A stunning and sexy Gwyneth Paltrow image graces the subscribers’ cover that jumps from every mailbox and coffee table (always keeping subscribers on their toes, so to speak), and a run-of-the-mill single copy cover that reflects the habitual look of the magazine so newsstands’ buyers will not be confused whether it is the same magazine they buy every month (Think Cosmo, same cover design for how many years now?)…

However this ever expanding trend is not only limited to the newsstands vs. the subscribers, but also continues to spread among different newsstands’ geographical locations testing different covers and different images. Ladies’ Home Journal’s July issue offers a split newsstands distribution with two cover photos, that of the celebrity Kathie Lee Gifford and the hot and sizzling summer cookout. It is fun to note that the ribs image did not make it to the Gifford cover, but Ms. Gifford was able to make it, albeit, in a very small inset on the ribs cover…go figure!

The summer double issue of National Geographic Adventure lives up to its tag-line: Dream It, Plan It, Do It. The subscribers’ cover is a relaxing beauty to look at; an invite without words to get you into the magazine. The newsstands’ cover, with its usual cover lines, maybe un-relaxing in its design and typography, but extremely relaxing with the choice of topics. Whether you are a single copy buyer or a subscriber this issue of NG Adventure is a must to have, to enjoy, to relax and to live it up. It also adheres to the basics of human memory recall skills: people see and remember color first, pictures second and type third… That is why I always tell my clients not to change the color and pictures when having a split edition between the single copy and subscribers’ editions so the readers will not be confused….as for the type, by the time our memory cells are at work, the color and the photo image already tell us it is the same magazine, so there is no room for confusion.

Some magazines have declared the winner when it comes to the presidential elections and some are still waiting for the public to decide. Others have decided on their dream team working together. Here is a quick snap shot of some magazines and the way they treated the Democrat and Republican candidates.
For Rolling Stone there is no question about their choice (and no cover lines, as in what more can we say?) Barack Obama is the choice and for the first time in a long long time RS has a cover with no cover lines… (last that I can remember are the John Lennon and Yoko Ono cover in 1981, the Demi Moore cover in 1995, and George Harrison in 2002. As in the Obama cover, there was nothing but the name of the magazine, the date and the picture…not even a caption identifying the pictures.
Fortune magazine on the other hand opted for giving the people the choice between the candidates. A split cover on newsstands offers readers the two candidates (each on his own cover) with the coverline How I’ll Fix The Economy. The editors at Fortune told min newsletter that they will let us know the result of the single copy vote at a later date.

Newsmax magazine opted for the person who is ready when the Red Phone rings at 3:00 am. With the Red Phone being the big picture on the cover, the coverline informs readers that McCain is ready to take that call.
My choice of the presidential election covers is that of New York magazine (which, by the way, has become my favorite magazine of late). Why decide when you can have the dream team…McCain and Obama joining hands and working together…Maybe that will be the dream team for the future…but wait a second, who will be the Presidential Candidate and who will be the VP? Oh, well, just a minute detail…

Enjoy the summer and look for more presidential covers coming soon…

BPA, along with about 10 other association and auditing bodies, including ABC, has ramped up a campaign to combat ad buying in un-audited titles. Called Buy Safe Media, the program targets client-side buyers in b-to-b markets that spend $250,000 or less on advertising.
The program, initiated two years ago by BPA at the request of member publishers, has emerged from a testing and research phase and the 11 associations and auditing bodies have begun to reach out to their constituencies in earnest.

The aforementioned quote is nothing but the intro to an article by Bill Mickey titled BPA and Friends Turn up Heat on Un-Audited Magazines… This so called campaign of Buy Safe Media tries to convince advertisers and ad agencies not to advertise in un-audited magazines (that is almost 6,500 consumer magazines alone out of the 7,000 plus on the market place). Both Bob Sacks and myself were horrified to say the least on how low some folks in our industry are willing to sink in order to make their business flourish. Unknown to them, or so it seems, is with their action they maybe bringing the temple on their competitors and themselves at the same time.
It is needless to say that people who are willing to advertise in a magazine that gives you 52 issues for $10.00 because it is audited, but not in a magazine that will charge you the same price for one issue but is not audited, are not in the business of customers who count, but rather they are in the business of counting customers…customers in most cases who do not count.
What follows is what my friend Bob wrote in his electronic newsletter today including my comments:

BoSacks Speaks Out: BPA-ABC’s Unwise Attack on Magazines

The new pathology detailed below actually disgusts me. There are over 18,000 magazines printed today and of that number 7,000 are newsstand titles. There are approximately 1,000 new titles started each year. This report and the campaign against legitimate magazines listed below is an attack at the heart of the entrepreneurial publishing business. ABC, ABM, BPA, and the Association of National Advertisers have a very minor fraction of the titles published in their bullpen, yet they wish to crush all who stand in their way or choose not join their exclusive clubs.

I am not alone with these feelings. Samir Husni wrote to me in an email last night that:

. . . it is about time for magazines to start looking at customers who count and not just counting customers . . . those folks who publish great magazines like Good and Flaunt do not need an auditor to tell them how many people are receiving their magazine. Their customers, both the advertisers and the readers know the relationship that they enjoy between the reader and the magazine . . . It is a pure case of jealousy and greed to launch such a campaign. When are we going to learn not to attack each other and focus on other media. Advertisers who want to reach that unique upscale audience of V magazine are not interested to see either the ABC audit or the BPA audit . . . When are we going to learn . . . I have no earthly idea . . .

It is unconscionable to attempt to crush the rest of the industry. It is attacks and stupidity like this that will tear down the very industry that they are attempting to prop up with self-serving dogma. Like chastity, auditing is/and should be a choice. A pox on all your houses; but I cannot wish harm on my industry by wishing that ye reap what ye sow.
BoSacks
-30-

The news about U.S. News & World Report cutting its frequency next year to 26 times a year brought the prophets of doom and gloom from their hideaways to spread yet another prophecy of “Print is Dead” and “We told you so.” The funny thing is those folks have such short memories and can’t seem to recall their own predictions in 1985 about the end of the newsweeklies because of a thing called CNN, and later because of another thing called the internet.
It is good to hear from the folks at U.S. News and World Report that the terms news and weekly are now an oxymoron. I have been saying that for at least five years now, in fact my actual quote was more directed to the terms “news and paper” as being an oxymoron. But that does not mean we are not going to have daily papers or weekly magazines. All what it means is that news will no longer be the domain of paper, whether it is daily or weekly. I was amazed to learn on a recent trip to The Netherlands that they do not call their “newspapers” newspapers, but rather dailies. So the problem of being an oxymoron does not exist over there. As I have always said, the problem is not what frequency you decide upon, but rather what content are you going to provide. Try to convince The Week or The Economist or Time that there is no room for magazines that deal with newsy and important issues on a weekly basis. Some cover the issues with a “nugget” style and some provide you with the entire “breast of chicken.”
A quick look at the content of U.S. News & World Report shows that neither the U.S. News or the World Reports are there, in force, anymore…it feels that the great DNA of the two combined magazines of days past has disappeared. Maybe a better name for the new product should be U.S. Consumer & Reports since, after all, it seems like what they are trying to do is, in fact, create another Consumer Reports magazine, but this time one that is published every other week.
It is a sad day for a magazine that once was considered the “academic” of all news weeklies to exit the weekly scene completely, but it is a sadder day when we butcher a DNA and put the blame on something else. Killing the magazine and starting a new one with a new name U.S. Reports will be much more appreciated from both the traditional readers of the magazine and those who may pick up the magazine under the new name.

What follows is the most recent column my friend Bob Sacks wrote in Publishing Executive magazine. I decided to run the entire article with just one comment: my friend Bob is moving one step closer to ink on paper away from its imitation the e-paper thing. Bob does not even once refer to e-paper in this article and pushes his predictions to 2025 rather his usual “five years from now.” Judge for yourself after you read his column.

http://www.pubexec.com/story/story.bsp?sid=107630&var=story
Publishing Executive
BoSacks: Looking at the Future of New Launches

Will the increasing costs of entry make print publishing a world where only the brave and truly committed dare to go?
As you may know, my friend Samir Husni, also known as Mr. Magazine, tracks new magazine launches. He has done so for decades and has amassed a wealth of data. In his latest announcement, the overall numbers for our business are less than stellar. Many possible reasons exist for this decline. Both Husni and I can postulate about its causes, but neither of us actually knows.

According to Husni: “The number of new magazine launches in the first quarter of 2008 (150) increased by five titles compared to Q1 2007. [While it was an increase,] it is still a far cry from the introduction of 192 new magazines in the same time period in 2006. However … only 41 magazines were launched with the intention to be published at least four times a year compared with 50 in 2007, and 72 in 2006.”

Husni goes on to ask:

“So what does this mixed bag of numbers mean? Not much. Since I have started tracking new magazine launches, I have witnessed a two or three years’ decline after a very healthy and busy year. [2005] was a very healthy year—1,013 new magazines were launched. The decline started in 2006. We are in our third year of decline. In 2006, we [saw] 901 new launches. The number dropped to 715 last year, and if the trend of the previous years continues, we will see another drop again this year before the numbers bounce back. Call it market correction if you please, but definitely it is not a sign that print is on its way out.”

Well, on that last point, Mr. Magazine and I agree. Printed magazines are not on their way out. Not by a long shot. I believe that the printed magazine will have a prosperous run until the advent and adaptation of new technologies, which will finally surpass the printed magazine around 2025. So there is some breathing room left. And even in 2025, magazines will not be completely gone, and those publishers established to produce them will do just fine. But I do believe that by 2025, the printed magazine will not be the predominant way that the public will read, but rather only one of the ways. Sort of like it is now, only more so.

So what will happen to Husni’s belief that there will be a predictable parabolic curve of highs and lows of new title releases? I think there will always be some high points of new releases and some low points. But as we move into the future there will be periods of lower highs and lower lows. And the long-term trend will be a decreased number of new printed titles, until we reach a new level of sustainability. That new sustainability will be predicated on the dictates of the new information age, balanced with the cost structure of print-and-ship manufactured goods. This may not be a bad thing for the printing and publishing industry. Perhaps a more expensive entry fee to be a printed publisher will lead to a greater survival rate, as only the brave and the truly committed will apply.

I believe we will reach a new successful, sustainable plateau of new releases more in line with the new business realities of the day. The further the reach of a new digital infrastructure, the less drive there will be to spend money on printed products. Publishing has always had a component of vanity attached to it. Almost everybody wants to be a publisher. In the past, the only way to do that was to put ink on paper. It was significantly less costly than it is today to materialize those vanity impulses.

I think we will find that the new world order is based on dematerialization. The dematerialization business plan can send billions of words anywhere on the planet in an instant with no material form and no manufacturing expenditure.

So, as usual, Mr. Magazine and I agree on some points and disagree on others. For today, we agree that the printed magazine is not going away any time soon, but disagree on the relevance of the decreasing trend in new startups.

Bob Sacks (aka BoSacks) is a printing/publishing industry consultant and president of The Precision Media Group (BoSacks.com). He is also the co-founder of the research company Media-Ideas (Media-Ideas.net), and publisher and editor of a daily international e-newsletter, Heard on the Web. Sacks has held posts as director of manufacturing and distribution, senior sales manager (paper), chief of operations, pressman, circulator and almost every other job this industry has to offer.

Copyright 2008 | North American Publishing Company | All Rights Reserved
1500 Spring Garden Street, 12th Floor | Philadelphia, PA 19130 USA | (215) 238-5300