Diary of a Mad Editor

Magazine publishers have kicked-in $90 million for an anti-Internet/pro-print mag ad campaign according to a reporting in Min Online. The first ad is said to be a two-page spread featuring an image of Olympic swim champ, Michael Phelps and a one-page essay titled “We surf the Internet, we swim in magazines.” The ad copy reads:

“The Internet is exhilarating,” “Magazines are enveloping. The Internet grabs you. Magazines embrace you. The Internet is fleeting. Magazines are immersive. And both media are growing.” The essay argues that magazine readerships has grown 11% during the 12-year lifespan of Google. Just as TV didn’t displace movies, magazine use is flourishing. “Which is why people aren’t giving up swimming just because they also enjoy surfing.”

With Apple sending out birth announcements for it’s iPad (which is supposed to be the thing to finally magazine readers to pay for digital content), and print allegedly growing despite years of reports to the contrary, one has to wonder about the timing of this big ad buy. I’m wondering what the point of spending that kind of money on this ad campaign is. For one thing, I’m wondering where they came up with that 11 percent figure. What study did it come from and what was the criteria? I’ve read other studies in the last year that suggest a smaller increase in readership and just last week, I read a statistic from one study that said that readership in general interest magazines had declined in that same 10-year period. Personally, I think it’s very hard to accurately track readership in magazines. You figure, a lot of magazines have failed in the last ten years, while others have started-up (and some of those failed while others found an audience). You have to figure that many magazines have probably lost substantial readership while some other may have grown. You also have to consider that magazines tend to pass through many hands of people who don’t really pay for the magazines. And how many people pay attention to magazine ads? This all raises the question of what’s the inherent value of a particular magazine. Why are magazines losing favor with advertisers (because I suspect that’s the real purpose of this ad — to reach advertisers). I’m thinking that advertisers are turning away from magazines less because the readership numbers and more because magazines suck. I’ve been reading magazines since I was a kid. At one time I subscribed to several magazines. Now, I generally don’t buy or subscribe to them. I read them on the newsstand in the supermarket or in the library if at all. Otherwise, I read articles online. Why? Well, it’s not because subscriptions are more expensive. It’s because I see no value in print magazines. Let’s face it, there are very few general interest magazines that publish fiction anymore. The news-oriented magazines are typically outdated by the time they hit the newsstands. Not to mention that it does seem that many magazines devote more space to advertising than to actual content. Now, I’m not really saying that all magazines suck or that there aren’t still some magazines that do have some value, but for the most part, I’d rather read magazine articles online these days. And I’m sure most people (if they are being totally honest) would agree. And if I’m an advertiser, I’ve really got to take that into consideration when figuring up an advertising budget.