Yes, there's a Ponzi feeling to a lot of paid content models, after the tech world todl everybody they could (and should!) create. They're doing it again with AI--"Always wanted to draw but aren't an artist? Use Photoshop Generative Fill!"
I like the Bystander baseball cap, but wanted to do more, so I tattooed the logo on my forehead, to drive interest. With all the extra space up there, I also inked a QR code and one of Geo Booth's dogs licking itself.
As someone who has been involved with every aspect of magazine/newspaper/web publishing for close to 40 years, I actually don't see why print can't continue to work.
I think that publishers made a huge mistake in the 90s by treating the web and digital as "the future," instead of going with their strength, which was print. Instead of the constant chase to get more readers online, they should have stuck with print and used the digital space for some of that content. (Yes, the horse is out of the barn and there's probably no going back.)
I don't know if major publishers like the NYT or WSJ will go all-digital in my lifetime, but why couldn't they do a hybrid? I mean a real hybrid: put a ton of content online, but also have a print edition that has exclusive writing (and advertising) that will never be online? It's print-only, an exclusive, and the only place you'll be able to read these writers, see those pictures, enjoy those comics, is in the print edition. (And as a bonus, one of the reasons print can still work is that print is separate and special. Everything gets flattened out and gets to be the same online, whether it's a small publication or a large one.)
It's almost like we're simply shrugging our shoulders and assuming that the only way forward is digital. Nobody is even trying print anymore. Not really, not purely, except niche publications.
Print! I think it's worth a shot.
Cheers,
Bob Sassone
The Saturday Evening Post (yes, we're still around!)
Bystander always tried to hybridize in that way, with the print mag being the special collectible art object, with our web stuff handling timely humor, quick short stuff, etc.
What I remember was that in the 90s, publishing side people got VERY excited about digital because they thought it would work exactly like paper, but without all those costs! What they didn't realize was how much digital would impact reader behavior, perception of value, and even ad rates. I didn't get into the utter destruction of the advertising side--"dollars in print turn to pennies online."
I will check out the SatEvePost! So nice to hear from you and @joeberger and the other mag veterans.
Given everything that you say here and the enduring popularity of print books, I wonder if there's a future in more collaboratively written books. More anthologies. More co-written novels. New things that no one has done yet. I like the idea of packaging a novel by a more well-known author with a related short story from someone else tacked on at the end. Or what about a book where the first half is reported journalism and the second is fiction from the same world? The demise of magazines is very sad but I wonder if print has a few tricks left.
Anthologies don't sell, as a rule, and I think that's because what print gives you is intimacy. In part, the Bystander's commercial problem is precisely this. But I am 1000% in favor for any and all experiments.
I've always felt that the print magazine industry started its long, weird decline when M&A started in the 1980's. One of my first consulting gigs was with this allegedly genius Frankenstein company that supposedly was "fixing" second and third tier publications. I was too young and too naive and bought into all of that. Of course, when it crashed, it dawned on me that none of it made sense. If we were such geniuses, then why didn't our second and third tier fixer uppers become category leaders?
It feels weird to say thank you for this piece, given the general tone of gallows humor, but I appreciate it. Informative, clearly heartfelt, and concerning.
I have stacks of unread print magazines around my house . . . (I'm not sure that I can say I'm doing my part because they're fairly well-established magazines; the NYRB and LRB, but I do appreciate the effort involved to produce a well-edited magazine).
The LRB is definitely more consistent. I had previously unsubscribed from the NYRB while they were going through a variety of editorial turnover. I recently re-subscribed after hearing that the new editor was good.
I wouldn't say it's as good as it was 15 years ago, and it's more attuned to current events than the LRB, which I think is a disadvantage, but I've been glad that I re-subscribed.
As I get older I think one of the advantages of print is that it encourages a habit of read for a stretch, stop when you've read enough, and take some time to mull over or process what you've read.
Reading online discourages stopping to process and encourages switching to another task.
I think it was the editor that I didn't prefer in the NYRB; I compared it to the Silvers/Epstein years and felt the NYRB was trying desperately to be contemporary, and trying to avoid seeming too "dead white males." But too-long essays on Edward Gibbon are what I used to go to the NYRB for.
Whenever I read Lapham's Quarterly I felt it did a good job balancing these factors, whereas the NYRB really felt like "by the junior faculty at Yale, for the junior faculty at Yale."
That's definitely true: context switching kills the intimacy between a reader and writer/artist. Nothing worse than someone intending to sit to read an article on a screen before getting a push notification about a group text...
Michael, your “digital newsstand” idea kind of happened with PressReader. I work in an academic library and PressReader acts as a portal for contemporary international news, fashion, music, pop culture, etc. These are most definitely digital versions of print mags, not web versions. The academic publishing model is also fucked, but PressReader is an interesting hybrid of print/digital and using libraries’ buying power to support it. I don’t know much about their model, I just know a lot of libraries use it for access to mass market pubs.
Fantastic summary. I love print. As much as I hated having an editor when I was a reporter, the reader in me loves tight copy, consistency over time, and even classified ads. I will see you in the gift shop!
I'm a cartoonist; I don't have money to buy magazines. But I do read them in and borrow them from the library. Easier on the eye (I'm 54 and screens are tiring) unless they are marketed to youngsters and they have put white text on a pale background, WTF? Also easier in the bath.
In the final years of my journalism career, I toiled in the "sponsored content" vineyard. Has it become the expected savior of the publishing industry?
Re: Substack. Every writer-driven platform eventually runs into the same issue: if everybody is making the writing, nobody is buying the writing.
Yes, there's a Ponzi feeling to a lot of paid content models, after the tech world todl everybody they could (and should!) create. They're doing it again with AI--"Always wanted to draw but aren't an artist? Use Photoshop Generative Fill!"
I like the Bystander baseball cap, but wanted to do more, so I tattooed the logo on my forehead, to drive interest. With all the extra space up there, I also inked a QR code and one of Geo Booth's dogs licking itself.
That’s the spirit, Jim!!!!
As someone who has been involved with every aspect of magazine/newspaper/web publishing for close to 40 years, I actually don't see why print can't continue to work.
I think that publishers made a huge mistake in the 90s by treating the web and digital as "the future," instead of going with their strength, which was print. Instead of the constant chase to get more readers online, they should have stuck with print and used the digital space for some of that content. (Yes, the horse is out of the barn and there's probably no going back.)
I don't know if major publishers like the NYT or WSJ will go all-digital in my lifetime, but why couldn't they do a hybrid? I mean a real hybrid: put a ton of content online, but also have a print edition that has exclusive writing (and advertising) that will never be online? It's print-only, an exclusive, and the only place you'll be able to read these writers, see those pictures, enjoy those comics, is in the print edition. (And as a bonus, one of the reasons print can still work is that print is separate and special. Everything gets flattened out and gets to be the same online, whether it's a small publication or a large one.)
It's almost like we're simply shrugging our shoulders and assuming that the only way forward is digital. Nobody is even trying print anymore. Not really, not purely, except niche publications.
Print! I think it's worth a shot.
Cheers,
Bob Sassone
The Saturday Evening Post (yes, we're still around!)
https://www.bobsassone.com
Bob, I 10000% agree here.
Bystander always tried to hybridize in that way, with the print mag being the special collectible art object, with our web stuff handling timely humor, quick short stuff, etc.
What I remember was that in the 90s, publishing side people got VERY excited about digital because they thought it would work exactly like paper, but without all those costs! What they didn't realize was how much digital would impact reader behavior, perception of value, and even ad rates. I didn't get into the utter destruction of the advertising side--"dollars in print turn to pennies online."
I will check out the SatEvePost! So nice to hear from you and @joeberger and the other mag veterans.
The Saturday Evening Post hasn't been the same since it stopped trumpeting the benefits of lysine. :-)
Given everything that you say here and the enduring popularity of print books, I wonder if there's a future in more collaboratively written books. More anthologies. More co-written novels. New things that no one has done yet. I like the idea of packaging a novel by a more well-known author with a related short story from someone else tacked on at the end. Or what about a book where the first half is reported journalism and the second is fiction from the same world? The demise of magazines is very sad but I wonder if print has a few tricks left.
Anthologies don't sell, as a rule, and I think that's because what print gives you is intimacy. In part, the Bystander's commercial problem is precisely this. But I am 1000% in favor for any and all experiments.
America is the dumbest country on Earth. If I and a handful of others continue to support print and good writing, that's something at least.
Yep, and this is why magazines strive in England.
I just saw this topical story -- yikes: https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/07/11/mta-newsstands-revenue-vacant/
That is AMAZING and unsurprising. If I was part of New York City government, I would claim newsstands as an iconic Nyc thing, like Paris’ pissoirs :-)
I've always felt that the print magazine industry started its long, weird decline when M&A started in the 1980's. One of my first consulting gigs was with this allegedly genius Frankenstein company that supposedly was "fixing" second and third tier publications. I was too young and too naive and bought into all of that. Of course, when it crashed, it dawned on me that none of it made sense. If we were such geniuses, then why didn't our second and third tier fixer uppers become category leaders?
Joe, I absolulely agree with you. Once the title gets too far from the Founder(s), and begins to be traded around, it's cooked.
BTW, I love your posts. Everybody interested in magazines, go read Joe's Substack!
It feels weird to say thank you for this piece, given the general tone of gallows humor, but I appreciate it. Informative, clearly heartfelt, and concerning.
You are welcome, Nick. Remember that we can change this if we want. The reader problem is the core problem.
I have stacks of unread print magazines around my house . . . (I'm not sure that I can say I'm doing my part because they're fairly well-established magazines; the NYRB and LRB, but I do appreciate the effort involved to produce a well-edited magazine).
I’ve tried both in the last five years and found that LRB was much more to my liking.
The “unread pile” is a real problem with the form and the contemporary reader; other media occupies a lot of what used to be reading time maybe?
Speaking personally, reading print makes me smarter and interacting with screens does the opposite.
The LRB is definitely more consistent. I had previously unsubscribed from the NYRB while they were going through a variety of editorial turnover. I recently re-subscribed after hearing that the new editor was good.
I wouldn't say it's as good as it was 15 years ago, and it's more attuned to current events than the LRB, which I think is a disadvantage, but I've been glad that I re-subscribed.
As I get older I think one of the advantages of print is that it encourages a habit of read for a stretch, stop when you've read enough, and take some time to mull over or process what you've read.
Reading online discourages stopping to process and encourages switching to another task.
I think it was the editor that I didn't prefer in the NYRB; I compared it to the Silvers/Epstein years and felt the NYRB was trying desperately to be contemporary, and trying to avoid seeming too "dead white males." But too-long essays on Edward Gibbon are what I used to go to the NYRB for.
Whenever I read Lapham's Quarterly I felt it did a good job balancing these factors, whereas the NYRB really felt like "by the junior faculty at Yale, for the junior faculty at Yale."
That is all true. . .
That's definitely true: context switching kills the intimacy between a reader and writer/artist. Nothing worse than someone intending to sit to read an article on a screen before getting a push notification about a group text...
JASON THAT HAPPENED TO ME WITH YOUR ED SOREL ARTICLE
For some reason, this reminded me of Charles Beaumont's "Gentlemen, Be Seated."
I’m of course in and you can rely on me for continued support. So now you just need 4,999.
. . .not to mention print newspapers. . .
Michael, your “digital newsstand” idea kind of happened with PressReader. I work in an academic library and PressReader acts as a portal for contemporary international news, fashion, music, pop culture, etc. These are most definitely digital versions of print mags, not web versions. The academic publishing model is also fucked, but PressReader is an interesting hybrid of print/digital and using libraries’ buying power to support it. I don’t know much about their model, I just know a lot of libraries use it for access to mass market pubs.
Fantastic summary. I love print. As much as I hated having an editor when I was a reporter, the reader in me loves tight copy, consistency over time, and even classified ads. I will see you in the gift shop!
I'm a cartoonist; I don't have money to buy magazines. But I do read them in and borrow them from the library. Easier on the eye (I'm 54 and screens are tiring) unless they are marketed to youngsters and they have put white text on a pale background, WTF? Also easier in the bath.
In the final years of my journalism career, I toiled in the "sponsored content" vineyard. Has it become the expected savior of the publishing industry?
"No Joke: The Onion Thinks Print Is the Future of Media
The satirical site is hoping a newspaper with fake stories and fake ads will lead to real money."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/business/media/the-onion-print-paper.html