The Magazine's Future is in Our Hands

I've been hearing the death knell of traditional magazine publishing for some time now.  Subscriptions and revenues are down.  Anxiety amongst management, reporters, and staff is high.  Many younger readers are getting their news and commentary almost exclusively online.  Is traditional magazine publishing going the way of the buggy whip?

Recently I traded in some airline miles for some magazines.  I hadn't been flying anywhere, and the airline (US Air) was quite insistent that I do something with the miles (I'm sure they benefited somehow, but oh, well).  And so, I obediently ticked off one magazine after another that I would have been unlikely to have ordered otherwise: titles like Dog Fancy, Budget Travel, and Martha Stewart Living.  10 in all. I sent in my little postcard and waited.

One by one, they started to arrive.  A mini-deluge of glossy reading to multi-task with while watching TV. Then, within the hour, destined for the recycling bin.

I have other magazines I care more for (The New Yorker, some art magazines), but for the most part, I find a magazine a quick "rifle" at best.  Something to take to the hairdresser.  Only occasionally to take to the bedside table. I am as much a magazine reader as the next person, but I'd have to say, they seem to have lost their sheen recently.

My question is, is magazine readership down because there are better (digital) versions or alternatives, because of the growth of other forms of news and entertainment, because of concern about the environment, or because magazines don't seem to give much bang for the buck?  (Some seem to be mostly ads).

I went online in search of answers.  I was wondering what I would do if I gave up traditional magazines permanently. Here's what I found:

1) The online version of a magazine is not necessarily better. I enjoy leafing through The New Yorker, for example, because I know I will discover a few cartoons to laugh at, find a review of interest, and possibly read a thought-provoking article. Everything is always in a certain order, so it's easy to page through.

The New Yorker's Website has no such appeal. Its long, scrolling Home Page seems to be mimicking that of the New York times, but the lack of color or imagination is at odds with the very nature of The New Yorker with its long tradition of artistic cover art. They seem to be trying to get on the bandwagon, but aren't sure how to go about it.

New Yorker online - just not the same

What's worse, I couldn't get my bearings on the site.  Some of their groupings of content seemed logical, but it simply isn't how I like to read the magazine - which is sequentially.  I like going from cover to cover.  It is reassuring in a way that newyorker.com is not.

2) Digital Editions are not the answer. These days, you can get "Digital Editions" of just about any magazine. For proof, check out Zinio.com, a virtual magazine store where you can buy access to digital versions of many magazines.  This would certainly solve the recycling issue, but is a digital edition interesting enough to consumers?

I have yet to see a fellow passenger reading a digital edition on his/her laptop on the train. Not to say it won't happen one day, but this just isn't a trend.

Zinio sets up a library where you can keep your magazines (not unlike the virtual library shelves Google allows on Google Books - see my previous blog entries on digital and virtual libraries).  Zinio.com is currently offering free complimentary issues so you can try the service out.  The digital editions load in Zinio's Online Reader.  It took a while for my March edition of Women's Health to obtain a clear focus (it was a bit blurry initially), but then it looked just like - well, the print edition. They are in fact identical - ads and all.

Zinio's Online Reader - too much work for a lot of ads

And that of course is the problem.  I didn't feel it was terribly much fun to page through the Web-based Online Reader of Women's Health.  It's certainly more work than the print version.  I had to keep squinting to make out the type, which varied in size.  On a regular Website, the type for articles tends to be all one size -and in print, the resolution is better so you can actually read it (Web resolution is far worse than print).

The digital edition of a magazine is the worse of both worlds: all the hard work of using computer software, with all the ads of the magazine. And none of the tactile experience.  Geez, I even missed the smelly perfume inserts, that's how nostalgic I was for traditional magazines after this experience.

3) There are many free substitutes for the kind of content magazines offer. This is probably what magazines are fearing.  Think about it.  There are so many ways to get your current news and information, no matter what the topic, including:

• The classic Web-only eZines (such as Salon)
• Website offered by TV stations (such as CNN.com), which have plenty of "magazine-style" reporting
• Blogs of every stripe and specialty (more specialist than magazines, often)
• Blog aggregators (such as Bloglines)
• Customized Home pages that aggregate news from global sources (such as iGoogle)

The list goes on.  Everybody has their favorite way of getting information, commentary, and entertainment, whether  specialized or general  Does anybody turn to printed magazines for the first word on anything anymore?

But after my foray online, I re-examined my pile of glossy printed matter.  What's the answer?  I will probably keep reading the magazines a little while longer.  At least until the Green Police come after me for contributing more than my share to the local landfill.