I'm in. You've just found a founder. After 40+ years as a (more or less) creative professional I still have a roof over my head and gas money. I've always spent more time than is typically called for in honing, shaping and coddling my projects beyond the limits of real profitability. I get the sense that you and your cohort are of the same breed. your last 3 or 4 Viral Loads have struck a chord with me and I get the feeling that, if a million people are in on the joke, I'd rather be one of the hundred who actually "get it".
As usual, you make very good sense, Mike. Another example: in the music magazine sub-genre, what you describe has also kinda worked for No Depression (I have no idea their numbers, but they're still in business, at least, long after "alt-country" stopped being buzzy). Lots of web content, and constantly pushing supporters to shell out for the quarterly publications, which have long-form stuff and look pretty handsome.
I didn't realise No Depression had a print edition. that's intriguing.
I cancelled my American Songwriter hard copy subscription because there was almost nothing of substance in the whole damn magazine. It was just ads for guitars and songwriting camps and puff pieces on new releases.
The Funny Times keeps chugging along, 70,000 print run. Weird newspaper format—I literally never know how to unfold it—but it’s extremely satisfying to hold and actually turn pages.
it's interesting to me how the music "business" (that word...) has consistently been ahead of the curve on all of this relative to digital vs physical. the first to deal with pirating and the inevitable conversion to streaming/digital from physical media, the first creative "business" in which writing as a way of actually making a living collapsed (there is really no such thing anymore as a professional songwriter in any meaningful sense), and the first to rediscover the "physical feels real" that you mention, with the resurgence of vinyl. If you want to see how things are going in the print world, look to what's happening with music for a preview of the future, whatever it will be.
All of which is to say that if the pattern holds, what you're suggesting re: the return of print magazines is at least plausible. (I write this as I'm looking at the Beatles zine on my kitchen table. If they brought back Beatles Monthly, I'd subscribe, obviously. And I think many others would as well.)
The last few articles you've posted on this topic got me thinking about the other things that contributed to the ruination of magazine publishing: the greedy stranglehold of only two monopolistic distribution companies, which combined with the growth of super bookstores like Barnes And Noble, who charged a premium to be on their shelves(this cost was passed on by the distributors); the second issue was postal rates being jacked up by postal boards deadset on killing the best postal system in the world. But targeted micro-publishing partially overcomes these problems. As long as micro-publishing can build an allegiant fan/customer base who'll be happy to pay for a subscription which more than covers the cost of printing(using digital POD which has lower costs than traditional offset ) and shipping (the big variable here) it should be a winning model for any niche specialized publicaton.
Hopefully our assumptions about micro-publishing holds water. I guess the million dollar question is can a small publication hold its subscriber base while also germinating growth to new, younger subscribers? I’d bet this is a huge challenge for publications like The Nation.
We have. The only problem with Bystander has been scale, and that’s a publicity problem, not a model problem. I agreed to relaunch the mag after Brian promised he would get people like Bill Murray to help us promote; when he didn’t, we got caught in a lower level where it’s much harder to make profit.
I believe that what keeps academic journals in print is that they look good on a shelf, in a barrister bookcase, on the coffee table of an office. Sometimes they are smaller in size. Humbug sized, National Geographic sized. But similar concept to Bystander: a small, loyal, built-in audience that spends a lot of time preparing their work, wants to see it in print, and a lot of the writers are also readers of the publication, and vice-versa.
Will someone please explain to me how what The Onion is doing is markedly different from an old-school print magazine subscription, just more expensive? I think I lost the plot here.
From what I gather “members” will receive special perks. Also, “members” are hipper than “subscribers.” Also, “members” can be given any deal you wish; but “subscribers” locks the publisher in to a specific deal.
All this. And every day I thank my lucky stars for Harold Ross (and William Gaines).
I'm in. You've just found a founder. After 40+ years as a (more or less) creative professional I still have a roof over my head and gas money. I've always spent more time than is typically called for in honing, shaping and coddling my projects beyond the limits of real profitability. I get the sense that you and your cohort are of the same breed. your last 3 or 4 Viral Loads have struck a chord with me and I get the feeling that, if a million people are in on the joke, I'd rather be one of the hundred who actually "get it".
God bless you Stephen! Welcome Aboard!
As usual, you make very good sense, Mike. Another example: in the music magazine sub-genre, what you describe has also kinda worked for No Depression (I have no idea their numbers, but they're still in business, at least, long after "alt-country" stopped being buzzy). Lots of web content, and constantly pushing supporters to shell out for the quarterly publications, which have long-form stuff and look pretty handsome.
I didn't realise No Depression had a print edition. that's intriguing.
I cancelled my American Songwriter hard copy subscription because there was almost nothing of substance in the whole damn magazine. It was just ads for guitars and songwriting camps and puff pieces on new releases.
Yes, they have thematic quarterlies: pretty hefty, content-wise.
The Funny Times keeps chugging along, 70,000 print run. Weird newspaper format—I literally never know how to unfold it—but it’s extremely satisfying to hold and actually turn pages.
"Caligularian" wins Substack today.
An utter guess but it did have a ring
Good luck to anyone trying to keep print alive , for all the reasons you mention here…
it's interesting to me how the music "business" (that word...) has consistently been ahead of the curve on all of this relative to digital vs physical. the first to deal with pirating and the inevitable conversion to streaming/digital from physical media, the first creative "business" in which writing as a way of actually making a living collapsed (there is really no such thing anymore as a professional songwriter in any meaningful sense), and the first to rediscover the "physical feels real" that you mention, with the resurgence of vinyl. If you want to see how things are going in the print world, look to what's happening with music for a preview of the future, whatever it will be.
All of which is to say that if the pattern holds, what you're suggesting re: the return of print magazines is at least plausible. (I write this as I'm looking at the Beatles zine on my kitchen table. If they brought back Beatles Monthly, I'd subscribe, obviously. And I think many others would as well.)
The last few articles you've posted on this topic got me thinking about the other things that contributed to the ruination of magazine publishing: the greedy stranglehold of only two monopolistic distribution companies, which combined with the growth of super bookstores like Barnes And Noble, who charged a premium to be on their shelves(this cost was passed on by the distributors); the second issue was postal rates being jacked up by postal boards deadset on killing the best postal system in the world. But targeted micro-publishing partially overcomes these problems. As long as micro-publishing can build an allegiant fan/customer base who'll be happy to pay for a subscription which more than covers the cost of printing(using digital POD which has lower costs than traditional offset ) and shipping (the big variable here) it should be a winning model for any niche specialized publicaton.
Correct as usual king Friday
Hopefully our assumptions about micro-publishing holds water. I guess the million dollar question is can a small publication hold its subscriber base while also germinating growth to new, younger subscribers? I’d bet this is a huge challenge for publications like The Nation.
We have. The only problem with Bystander has been scale, and that’s a publicity problem, not a model problem. I agreed to relaunch the mag after Brian promised he would get people like Bill Murray to help us promote; when he didn’t, we got caught in a lower level where it’s much harder to make profit.
I’m a subscriber to American Bystander. Should I expect a new issue soon, or what?
There’s one in the hopper Roy—happy to send you a back issue to tide you over. When was your first issue?
I believe that what keeps academic journals in print is that they look good on a shelf, in a barrister bookcase, on the coffee table of an office. Sometimes they are smaller in size. Humbug sized, National Geographic sized. But similar concept to Bystander: a small, loyal, built-in audience that spends a lot of time preparing their work, wants to see it in print, and a lot of the writers are also readers of the publication, and vice-versa.
I misread it as “bartender’s shelf” :-)
That works, too. In fact, that works better. I may just go back and edit that comment...
Will someone please explain to me how what The Onion is doing is markedly different from an old-school print magazine subscription, just more expensive? I think I lost the plot here.
From what I gather “members” will receive special perks. Also, “members” are hipper than “subscribers.” Also, “members” can be given any deal you wish; but “subscribers” locks the publisher in to a specific deal.