Redesign as Psychotherapy

I like this post from @Jason_Pontin, editor and publisher of Technology Review on their print, Web and other interface redesign, led by @rogerblack. He's right: a redesign is a chance to think through your whole strategy, and should flow from there. Everything should. (Not that it's easy!)

"It's more interesting to think about our redesign as a form of institutional psychotherapy: it provided us with the opportunity to re-examine how we publish our journalism. The new designs are the formalization of a strategy I announced in a column (and elaborated upon in a blog posting), 'How to Save Media,' in May 2009. Part of that strategy was to expand our number of publishing platforms to include tablets and smart phones. If you've not tried reading Technology Review on one of these electronic devices, do: I am sure you'll like it."

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/pontin/23489/

Forum: How To Choose The Right Web Publishing Tool

In my partnership with BGV Media, I'll be helping out with a seminar at the Magazine Publishers of America next Tuesday in New York, being presented by Amy Webb of Webbmedia Group and lead author on our paper on Content Management Systems. She's great. Those attending the seminar also get half-off the paper.

Here's details, on the MPA site, where you can also register and pay.

Does NY Mag Understand Newsweek's Business?

In New York Magazine's "numerical summary" of our economic times, they list the decline in the number of cars and light trucks sold, the proposed rise in the price of a transit farecard ... And the decline in guaranteed circulation for Newsweek magazine from 3.1 million in 2007 to a proposed 1.6 million in 2009.

But there's something the writers miss. Not only do they for some reason neglect 2008 (reported base of 2.6 million), but they also leave out a reasonable argument for the newsweekly to be cutting its circ: cutting costs, and the ability to raise ad rates for a more choice audience. As Ad Age reports:

Newsweek will likely take the opportunity to simultaneously steer toward a more a elite readership -- by eliminating the least-valuable, most-discounted subscriptions on its books.

Times are tough for print pubs, and magazines in recent months have started suffering some of the same steep declines newspapers have gotten used to. But it's also no secret that to get subscriptions, general interest weeklies and monthlies have practically given away the "book" for subscription prices that don't pay for the editions and thrown in premiums (such as umbrellas or tote bags) that can cost a good chunk of the subscription price.

So, while one could look at the move by Newsweek as an act of desperation brought on by declining economic times, we should also note that the company's rate base cut -- something Time did a couple years ago -- has been rumored since well before the current economic decline . It can get a smaller more valuable audience in print, leaving the less valuable but higher numerical audience, a lower-priced commodity for advertisers, to its digital side.

It's safe to say, too, that Newsweek isn't the only magazine thinking along these lines.

Too Much Content: John Byrne of Business Week

We've added John Byrne of BusinessWeek.com to the roster for tomorrow morning's "Wealth of Content" seminar at the Magazine Publishers of America, in New York.

In Whose Economic Interest?

Just read  the Atlantic Monthly piece on Google making us dumber. A choice quote:

Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link&lsqauo;the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It's in their economic interest to drive us to distraction

.

Really? Aren't there models that support thought, depth, breadth, attention spans? I think so. And this sounds like the whingeing (thanks for reminding me of that word, Jeff Jarvis) of someone who would complain about how stupid TV makes us all, ignoring that it's not the box but how you use it. After all, I read the piece on my Blackberry. Really. Might never have gotten to it otherwise.

Si Newhouse Has Been Through This Before

Yeterday's long and detailed NYTimes profile of Si Newshouse and his Conde Nast empire posits that the company may have to crimp on its luxury brand lifestyle:

Some people inside Condé’s stylish Times Square headquarters, as well as experts outside, wonder whether the company, by choice or necessity, will tighten its belt in the years to come — and risk losing some of its cachet along the way. Analysts point to the economic vise the Internet has already put on newspapers, and question whether the luxury goods market — the cash cow for Condé magazines — will continue to defy gravity.

But execs there have pointed out to me that Newhouse, in building the empire, not only made some unfashionable purchases (as the NYTimes points out, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker took many years to become profitable) but also managed the company, first under his father then on his own during the 70s and early 80s, economic times that many say look like today.

Vanity Fair's Shameless Promotion

Become their Facebook fan to save an intern's job. Or fast forward through the first minute of "jokes" in the Graydon Carter video to see what's in the August issue -- or just look at the table of contents.

Ziff Davis Enterprise Will Change Name in Q3

The B2B media and events company Ziff Davis Enterprise will change its name in Q3, according to CEO Steven Weitzner. Speaking on the new Scribe Media 'Print to Digital' show, he noted the confusion over the name (for the record, I had that confusion -- check out his memo on the topic), and that he knew something had to change when three clients asked him about matters pertaining to Ziff Davis Media.

The latter, Media, is the publishing company, probably best known for its PC Magazine, that is moving to emerge from bankruptcy, on what may be a  faster than expected timeline.  They sold Ziff Davis Enterprise to Insight Venture Partners in 2007.

Weitzner, who joined in January, oversaw a re-org in April after installing a new management team and hinted there might be more changes afoot. Though he did say there is room for people who want to write long-form articles and not necessarily do lots of digital, blogs and the like -- albeit fewer than in the past. He didn't say what the companies new name would be, even when pressed by host Matthew Schwartz.

ZD Enterprise calls itself an "integrated media and demand generation" company -- meaning, basically, lead generation in the tech space. Its well-known brands include eWeek and CIO Insight. Weitzner talked, too, of having events in virtual reality, something they've experimented with in the past.

While we're on the topic of Scribe Media and shows: The show I'm hosting, which my company Teeming Media partnered with Scribe on called "Naked Media" launched on Tuesday and will be available on demand soon. Our next guest is Dave Morgan, former head of Tacoda, June 4 at noon ET.

American Media Wants a Partner with Money

Considering the current debt load due for American Media Inc.,  it's not surprising that CEO David Pecker at today's Magazine Publisher's of America breakfast said he'd be glad for a partner like Elevation Partners, who got a reported 40 percent of Forbes for a reported $250-$300 million. Keith Kelly wrote in the NY Post that Source Interlink and AMI have been in discussions.

Pecker was answering a question from MPA chief Nina Link about whether he'd like to have strategic partners. Pecker said not a magazine company who's also in the celerity space; the seven biggies are very proprietary and protective of their brands and material, and it's not clear what synergies could be achieved, he said. But a financial partner -- show me the money! -- or a company that has expertise AMI might not, such as a TV production concern, could be a great partner, he said. He earlier had mentioned a TV company AMI was talking with about producing a series of events for, I believe, Muscle Fitness, around the country, taking a single show they've done and making it into a traveling series.

Ellies Observed

Disney execs Anne Sweeney and Rich Ross give Miley Cyrus a smooch for the pages of Portfolio magazine long before the Variety pictures come out.


Liveblogged coverage of the Ellies, the National Magazine Awards, at Fishbowl and Folio.

Few quick observations from way in the back of the orchestra:

Prompter-vision. Three actors from “30 Rock,” who presented the award for Leisure Interests, opted not to read the joke on the teleprompter taking off on the Miley Cyrus photo imbroglio, instead ad-libbing on about Tom Cruise. “She’s only 15,” one of them said to me later, conjecturing that Cruise was better because Cruise would be on Oprah on Friday. Top Chef host Padma Lakshmi went off her prompter script to talk about “fire in the loins,” likening it to magazine editing. Lenny Dykstra, former Met and Philly, reads slowly from the prompter and gets big laughs. (Good coverage of lawsuit involving Dykstra and Doubledown, publisher of his new magazine for pro athletes, from Jeff Bercovici.)

Engage me: American Society of Magazine Editors Executive Director talked about how magazines have “endured in their ability to engage” audiences for many years. It’s all about engagement, advertisers, hear that. Outgoing ASME president Cindi Leive says magazines gave us the “first developed form of journalism three centuries ago.” Second person in a row to talk about magazines and centuries.

Other than that, the usual bejeweled, be-gowned and be-tuxed crowd, nibbling everything from lobster tail cocktails in a martini glass to pretzels and pineapples drenched in chocolate from flowing chocolate fountains.

Why MagHound is Brilliant -- And Why It Won’t Work

Time Inc’s attempt to launch MagHound, a “Netflix of magazines,” in September is a great idea, and on the face of it something that should succeed. What’s better than getting to choose the magazines you want every month, rather than being stuck with multiple subscriptions to mags that will sometimes be dogs, and sometimes have a story or two you’re really interested in? (I know I’m not the only one who’s subscribed to a magazine after figuring that it’s cheaper than buying three copies at the newsstand. I know I’m also not the only one who’ll forego subscriptions to avoid not having the 8 or 10 “dog” issues of a monthly pile up.) I have in the past tried to get friends to participate in a "magazine trading" circle, where we all subscribe to 1 or 2 mags, then swap and share, but it never worked.

So, on the surface, it seems a great idea to charge $4.95 for three on up to $9.95 for seven magazines per month. But there are a few of reasons MagHound won’t work upon launch -- and they have largely to do with how this isn’t like Netflix:

• MagHound won’t have all the most desirable magazines. At least one major publishing house hasn’t signed up, nor have a few of the lesser that nevertheless have desirable titles.
• Unlike Netflix, fulfillment won’t be in 1 or 2 days. It’s more likely weeks. And even longer when fulfillment is from a house other than Time. One reason to subscribe to something like this is because, say, you hear about a hot story in Vanity Fair or Foreign Policy, and you want to get the mag shipped to you pronto to read it. But those magazines may not be available, and the won’t get there while you still remember why you wanted them.
• For Time, it’s not as winning a model as for Netflix, because it doesn’t buy the magazine once and then get to use it time and again for the price of two stamps, plus logistics and handling. Plus, postage for a magazine is horribly expensive compared to the sublimely engineered DVD packages Netflix devised.

If people wanted digital editions or a Web site, mobile edition, whatever-- which Time might consider offering at a discount, or they would offer some other digital access -- for an all-you-can-eat price, it might make more sense. (Oh, wait, that was called AOL.) Or if print-on-demand could be handled on a mass-customization level, where magazines were printed and bound quickly (and I mean like TODAY) as they’re ordered... but helas.

In theory, I love the concept. Get any magazine I want, for one subscription price. I’d of course prefer even more to get whatever I want at the Chris Anderson price of “$0”. Or at least the immediate gratification of click and BLAM, it’s here. (Even Amazon doesn’t take a week.) I hope MagHound refines its model before September and gets closer to what people really want in 2008.

Why Publishers Use PDFs

Jeff Jarvis, writes that the new iPod (which has same functionality as the iPhone -- save the phone part) should have been released first in the US as it was in the US, because then people would have seen the device for the wonder it is -- a portable reader and manipulator of media more functional than other such devices. I see his point.

He also asks why traditional publishers have used PDFs so often for their pages. Here's my read on it: It's because: 1. It's easily published from an existing print page -- same layout, easy export to the software, comes with the same defined edges and look. 2. it's perhaps the easiest distributed format to protect, using digital rights management. they can be forced to not allow certain types of copying or marking or resending. Publishers want control and in many cases haven't bought into the whole idea of net-plus from sharing media. 3. It's been around a long time, and therefore has a comfort level for them. It doesn't requiring new learning or investment. 4. They print easily on 8 1/2 x 11" sheets.

Now, as anyone who's ever struggled with a protected PDF can tell you: they're difficult and often choke email, and aren't very graceful on a lot of screens, and are a lot less attractive than a good page made with good links and Web safe colors. They're not really made for viewing on a screen or manipulating or putting in a widget, etc, etc. A lot of publishers have taken DRM off their PDFs to avoid causing their legitimate subscribers grief.

Nation Editor David Corn Pleads for Contributions

… and he wants contributions of the financial, not editorial, type.

Calling the new postal rate hikes for publications an afront to democratic discourse, and one that favors Time Warner-like conglomerates over smaller guys, The Nation's Washington editor, David Corn, sent a letter to registrants of his site (I believe I registered when judging it for some awards one year) asking for contributions. It's been posted here.

Bo Sacks, among others, have written about the hikes and their possible effect. This is big news to the magazine industry, and makes many of us wonder whether, in effect, the government will force niche publications without a strong print revenue model to go online only.

Editors are Now 'Content Managers'

Two makes a trend. Meredith publishing president Jack Griffin this morning said editors are now not just editors, but rather "content managers." That echoes remarks Hearst president Cathy Black's been making to the same effect, in private conversations and at a previous Magazine Publishers of America "Breakfast with a Leader" at the same podium.

Jack and Cathy say there's never been more of a need for editors, people who can sift through the clutter. But I guess you'd better also have your multi-platform boots strapped on if you want to work for them managing "content."

Griffin delivered a speech about the multi-pronged "360" publishing and marketing initiatives of Merdith. 360, pardon the pun, seems to be the new black. Bravo networks last week talked about their 360 marketing strategy at the Promax/BDA television promotion show, and everyone's drawing circles with arrows pointing at each other into their PowerPoint presentations these days.

Not that Griffin's wrong. He showed an impressive mix of content targeted at women, participation by them, editorial products, ad opportunities and more. He's clearly a strategic thinker. He said the Meredith list of names, consumers who can be marketed to, at 85 million strong, is the best in America.