I was sent this article at work and also picked up on it again through Twitter, it’s on Pentagram’s blog. In my opinion one of the points made is wrong because it confuses what audiences want and expect from different types of publications.
The point I have a problem with is below.
The end of frequency
Say goodbye to the idea of monthly magazines, or weeklies, or dailies. Print publications, already under siege by the Internet and 24-hour news cycle, will have to learn to adapt to a world of instantaneous updates. This is most obvious for news and business publications, but it’s just as true for fashion, entertainment and specialized titles.”Luke Hayman, 2010
I disagree with Luke, I would have written something like this.
The rebirth of frequency
Say hello to the idea of monthly, weekly or daily digital magazines. Print publications, which have seen their audience decimated by the unbundling of content on websites can take control of their content once again. News publications by their nature require instantaneous updates the feature led niche subject matter found in magazines doesn’t. The iPad may provide a consumer platform for a digital equivalent to a monthly, weekly or daily magazine.”Me, 2010
Putting news, business, fashion, entertainment and specialized titles in the same bracket confuses the issue. Newspapers and magazines are fundamentally different platforms, which are consumed in a very different way by their respective readers and in turn deserve different digital platforms.
Luke comments himself that “Print publications [are] already under siege by the Internet and [a] 24-hour news cycle” the modern news cycle isn’t part of the way modern magazines need to operate. While touching on topical issues magazines are predominantly feature led and nowhere near as time or location sensitive as a newspaper.
I also have a problem with Luke referring to the Internet like it is a medium (“under siege by the Internet”). It isn’t, the Internet is a place, print publications are under siege by websites.
Websites by their nature make bundling content rather difficult. The iPad as a medium may be able to deliver bundles more effectively in a fundamentally different way to websites. As Jony Ive comments in the iPad launch video though “In many ways this defines our vision, our sense of what’s next”. It isn’t the final solution, but it is a start.
When Bonnier published their Mag+ research at the end of last year they commented that audiences like “an editorial package” and “an infinite, endlessly expanding RSS feed” makes it difficult for an audience to really engage and relate to a content provider. Audience like a package they can “read through and finish”. I agree.
Audiences like a bundle of content, it’s not a bad thing for them to want and it’s not a bad thing for us to want to provide. The birth of the iPad does in no way whatsoever signal the imminent death of monthly, weekly or daily magazines, it signals their renaissance.
