Very good points and I think you’re absolutely right. It really does depend on the sector.

I didn’t hit on this point because I have neither the data nor the first hand experience to say for sure, but trade magazines and tech do seem to be problem areas. I would assume cars and any type of magazine that depends on product reviews will have trouble.

However, for consumer magazines as a whole, it’s amazing how little the zeitgeist matches the data. I think the iPad will be a game changer as well. It actually has the potential to make the online experience superior to the offline experience.

- Greg

Your points depend on the type of magazine. I would never work for tech in print again. Tech barely exists in print at all much tech writers are not free lance bloggers or doing something else.

Fashion might have a chance because the visuals in a fashion magazine can not be recreated in digital at this point today. I still believe it’s a long slow decent for print. I had a conversation with a friend who was involved in fashion in the 90’s. Apparently even photographers are starving today. Print’s pinnacle was in the 70’s and 80’s maybe part of the 90s for all involved . It’s been down hill since and will continue sure their might be a slight up swings on the way down. However in a decade half print publications we see on the newsstand today will be gone or eBook only.

Jim

I know it might seem like that from a certain point of view because that’s what the headlines say. However. from an insiders point of view (i.e. someone who actually runs media businesses) I can assure you it’s not the case.

1. If Magazines are profitable, but lose money on distribution, then advertisers are willing to foot the bill.
2. Magazine publishing is profitable (digital media isn’t as an industry).

I can tell you from experience that it is much easier to make a print business profitable than an internet business.

- Greg

But I’m not sure I can agree that “advertisers are willing to foot the bill” — at least not on the scale they once did.

Even Condé Nast, owner of many of the most iconic, resilient magazine brands in history, faces a <a href= http://paidcontent.org/article/419-newsweek-conde-nast-mags-face-1-billion-ad-decline/$1 Billion dollar ad decline.

It’s rough out there.

Because advertisers are willing to foot the bill. Magazines have been losing tons of money on distribution (in the US anyway) for a very long time.

- Greg

I admire contrarian viewpoints. They are rarer than they ought to be, especially when things are changing rapidly.

The part of your thesis I struggle with is this. The costs of producing and distributing content have shrunk to essentially zero. And, the devices we consume content on continue to multiply.

IMHO, the laws of supply and demand are kicking in hard and this will sharply devalue the pricing of all content.

How do you think magazines can make a comeback in spite of being much more expensive content, delivered much slower than the internet?

If you have a formula for this, I think every print publisher on Earth would like to talk with you

You are right that the past is no guarantee of the future. But the fact that the current crises so closely follows the historical pattern should give one pause.

Maybe the future will be different, but as for now, there is not any real evidence that it will be, despite what the headlines say. Whenever the zeitgeist is that much in conflict with the data, there’s money to be made. (btw. people still bank by phone).

I also agree that the iPad might be a game changer. It has the potential to make the online magazine experience actually superior to the offline experience.

- Greg

A good article and a great set of comments. I actually disagree with your conclusions. Your data is historical but I don’t think a historical trend necessarily predicts the future. We all agree the newspaper industry has been hit by digital and you mention classified ad issue but I think the consumer moved to digital for news because of its immediacy. Now I think, there is something new about to happen (which has nothing to do with history). I would predict that those people that have moved to digital for news will now want to take the next step and move to mobile digital for news, that is e-Readers, tablets and mobile phones will become the new place to be. There’s also a better business model for publishers here because this content can be sold (well everyone is hoping it can). Now, if this prediction comes true and a certain Steve Jobs seems to think it will, then what next people will have been converted from paper to touch screen. It’s obvious to me they would then expect and the environmental in them expect to read magazines in the same place. The switch for news could take 1 to 2 years to have major effect; the switch for magazines though will happen in the same timescale.

It’s a very good point. Magazines that depend heavily on classified advertising are in the same lousy position newspapers are. The web is unparalleled as a direct response medium.

However, publications that make their money on display advertising are in pretty good shape. Digital media doesn’t actually affect them that much. In actuality, one of the reasons that publishers have so much trouble making money on the web is that they fail to recognize the distinction and adapt.

- Greg

Why? because most of the advertising in this market comes from recruitment. Most recruitment advertising has migrated to the web, hence why it is still viable as a digital proposition.

So sometimes even the ‘free’ model cannot help magazines survive.