All I have to say to Hearst is “Good luck, bro.” The flatlining publisher, which produces magazines such as Popular Mechanics, Esquire and Cosmopolitan, has revealed that it’s working on an e-reader. The idea, of course, is to cut down the cost of creating a magazine—all that paper, ink, storage, delivery, gas, etc. add up, especially in an environment when ad sales are way down—without sacrificing that “magazine” feel. Too bad it’s doomed, and does, indeed, sacrifice that “feel.”
The Hearst e reader will use the same e-ink found in other digital readers, such as the Kindle. Hearst’s version, however, will be larger, so that the reader is large enough to display ads. Strike one, Heart. Holding onto the notion that ad revenue will pay for your costs, as if this is the 1990s! Strike two, also, why in God’s name will people buy this cheap, presumably black-and-white device to read a magazine? There’s a reason why they’re called “glossies!” People, for whatever reason, like to look at purdy pictures on thick magazine paper. Give them a device where now these photos are in black-and-white and have a resolution comparable to the GameBoy Pocket and you’ll quickly see how people are all, “Yeah, this stinks, sorry, Hearst.”
And for an arbitrary Strike Three, perhaps, I don’t know, people just aren’t that interested in reading whatever it is that Esquire writes when they can follow the intensity of things like the New American Teaparty on Twitter (#teaparty)? Why am I going to read, and pay $6, for a magazine, for some dumb top 10 list on the hottest styles for this summer? That’s why there’s digg!
Having graduated from some stupid, grossly expensive journalism school, I can tell you that 99 percent of the professors there don’t have a clue as to what’s happening technologically. “You mean I can read a TechCruch (or whatever) feature on SOME_DUMB_TREND right on my iPhone, for free, within minutes of THAT_TREND having become obvious, versus having to wait till next month’s issue of NO_LONGER_AROUND_MAGAZINE?” Yes, you can, and people do. (Sorta makes me wish I had skipped college and just become a firefighter or something. At least then I’d be helping people.)
But yes, Hearst is doomed. This rinky-dink e-reader, well, good luck.
“Why am I going to read, and pay $6, for a magazine, for some dumb top 10 list on the hottest styles for this summer? That’s why there’s digg!”
You seem to have never read a story, an actual story, in your entire miserable, unfulfilled life, you bitter twitterati. Otherwise, you might not have said something quite as stupid as the quote highlighted above. Have an actual reading experience, just once – you know, something you can’t read right on your iPhone, something that requires a little more brain – before you embarrass in print yourself again. I know, reading is hard. Jesus.
I think you missed the point, mudd. (But you didn’t miss the opportunity to insult me, which is cool; I enjoy online feuds.) While I personally think print magazines are largely rubbish, filled with content that you can very easily find online, and I won’t mourn their passing in the slightest, the main point was a technological one. Magazine publishers should strive to make their Web sites as compelling as the likes of TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Engadget (and us here at CG, to toot our own dumb horn), etc. if they want their brand to live on. As it stands, I think a kid in high school is much more likely to read a review of the latest iPod model on a tech blog *the day the device ships* then wait around till the relevant issue of MacWorld comes out.
Publishers should create a Damn Good iPhone/Android/WebOS app that automatically downloads the latest issue, and works to the iPhone/G1/Pre’s (or whatever phone) strengths to present the magazine in as positive a light as possible. Make the magazine’s entire archive available online and charge a fee, or throw that in with the subscription price. Stop relying on ads so much and raise the subscription price; a subscription to Edge costs something like $70 a year. If you like the magazine enough you’ll pay.
People, largely, are still consuming the same content, just in different manners. Play to those new manners and they’ll be in much better shape.
For the record, I subscribe to the New Yorker. Conde Nast can kill the paper version for all I care, since I read all the articles on the digital reader. I have no problem with reading long articles off a computer monitor.
A little disjointed, yes, but it’s just that publishers need to adapt to the way that people now consume content, and not fight tooth and nail. Has the music industry not taught these people anything?
Agree with Nicholas. As long as i have a browser with RSS feeds to my favourite sites (the crunch ones being at the top) i don’t need to waste money buying a magazine. I agree that the whole monthy or bi-weekly issue concept is probably on its death bed by now because rather than waiting for 3 or 4 weeks to see whats new, i can just get online to one of my favourite blogs or news sites and see instantly.
I subscribe to a lot of blogs so i get hourly updates on whats new and whats hot. So really, magazines are almost dead. The only place i could see them useful is in waiting rooms or in the salon i reckon. Actually i’m gonna blog about this.