You can’t please everybody, and it may be getting harder for print magazines to please the right people.

Bo Sacks posted an article about the challenges facing print magazines, which is a topic I’ve discussed before. Rising print and postal costs are a big part of it, as is the competition from online sources.

Michael Gerber gives a long explanation of what he thinks is going on, and this sentence from his article caught my attention.

“And also they [i.e., magazine publishers] would’ve had to entirely switch their mindset from ‘we make money by pleasing twenty big-ticket corporate advertisers’ to ‘we make money by pleasing one million readers.’”

That got me wondering if one reason for the decline in print magazines is a growing gap between what pleases advertisers and what pleases readers.

Think of it this way. If I can create a magazine that pleases advertisers and readers, I get good ad revenue and strong sales, subscriptions, and renewals. If I have to choose between advertisers and readers, that makes a much tougher business model.

To work through this I asked Perplexity and ChatGPT about it, and then I thought about it for a while, and I came up with this list. If you want to see the verbatim answers from the chat bots, I provide those below.

Note: I’m not trying to list all the headwinds faced by print magazines. I’m limiting myself to the narrow issue of how it might be harder to please both advertisers in and readers of a print magazine in today’s market than it was a few decades ago. I’m not claiming to have the answer, but here are a few things to consider.

The decline of the newsstand. Magazines used to sell a lot of copies on the newsstand, which meant they had to appeal to the reader directly. Mostly with the cover, of course, but people would also take a look inside. The decline of the newsstand has limited that kind of interaction, and it might accompany a decline in the relative market power of the reader.

Better reader stats. On the other hand, you could flip this on its head and say that onsite analytics gives publishers a far better sense of what readers actually want – beyond the cover. Their digital readers are giving them so much intelligence about what they want, it allows far better, more targeted editorial content.

Combine this with the so-called church-state issue. Editorial wants to make decisions for the reader without regard for what the advertisers want. It’s a lot easier to do that now.

Digital ads are more targetable. Ads in a print magazine can’t be targeted to the individual the way ads in a digital magazine can. The internet has changed advertising from a form or art to an exercise in number crunching. Advertisers demand data, and you can’t get as much data from a print magazine, which lowers the incentive to advertise in a print magazine.

The internet has made readers hate ads. Ads in a print magazine used to be a lovely part of the experience. If I’m reading a magazine about boats, I actually want to see ads about interesting boat products. From a consumer perspective, the internet has ruined advertising. We all hate ads now. They’re disruptive and annoying, and that antipathy to ads might carry over to the print world.

There’s too much content out there. The print magazine used to be the only way to reach certain audiences. That’s not true anymore.

Okay, so there’s my rehearsal of the bad news. What’s the good news?

Print still works well for niche, specialty topics, or where the glossy, pleasant smelling paper, and the feel of a tangible object create an experience that enhances the information. Like fashion magazines.

But let’s not kid ourselves – in either direction. Print is not dead, but print magazines have declined into a smaller market share. That’s not going to change.

Links

Why Print Magazines Are F*cked
BoSacks speaks out: Printed magazines are falsely maligned as relics of the past
Re-imagining magazines in the digital age

Answers from the ChatBots

This was the prompt I used for both services: “I read an article about magazine publishing that said the publisher has to choose between pleasing 20 corporate advertisers or pleasing 1 million subscribers. That made me wonder if it’s harder to do both — to please both groups — now than it used to be. Can you think of any reasons why that might be true?”

Perplexity’s response

The challenge of pleasing both corporate advertisers and subscribers has become more complex in recent years due to several factors:

1. Shift to Digital and Direct-to-Consumer Models: Traditional magazine distribution methods, like newsstands, have become less profitable, prompting publishers to focus more on digital platforms and direct-to-consumer (DTC) models. This shift allows publishers to have a direct line of communication with subscribers, understanding their preferences better and delivering more value. However, this can sometimes conflict with advertisers’ interests if the focus shifts too heavily towards subscriber satisfaction at the expense of advertising revenue.
2. Advertising Revenue Dependence: Many magazines have historically relied heavily on advertising revenue. As digital formats offer new advertising options (e.g., interactive ads), the pressure to maintain and grow advertising revenue remains significant. Advertisers often have specific demands that can influence editorial content, potentially leading to conflicts between maintaining editorial independence and satisfying advertisers.
3. Changing Consumer Expectations: Subscribers today expect more personalized and engaging content, which can be at odds with standardized advertising approaches. The rise of subscription-based revenue models has made subscriptions a more stable revenue source, but advertisers may feel sidelined if they perceive that their needs are being neglected in favor of subscriber preferences.
4. Economic Pressures and Market Dynamics: The magazine publishing industry is experiencing significant changes, including market consolidation and evolving consumer behaviors. These dynamics can create tension between the need to innovate and adapt to new market conditions while also meeting the traditional expectations of advertisers.
5. Content Monetization Strategies: Publishers are exploring new monetization strategies beyond traditional ads and subscriptions, such as events, merchandise, and digital content. These strategies require balancing the interests of different stakeholders, which can be challenging when trying to maintain both high subscriber engagement and advertiser satisfaction.

Overall, the evolving landscape of magazine publishing, driven by digital transformation and changing consumer behaviors, has made it more challenging to simultaneously please both advertisers and subscribers.

ChatGPT’s response

Yes, it could indeed be harder to please both corporate advertisers and a large subscriber base today compared to the past, and here are a few reasons why:

1. Increased Audience Expectations: With the rise of digital media, audiences have access to a wider variety of content tailored to their specific interests. This has led to higher expectations for content that feels authentic, relevant, and valuable. If a magazine’s content feels overly influenced by advertisers, it can lead to distrust and disengagement from subscribers.
2. Content Authenticity vs. Advertiser Influence: Subscribers are increasingly savvy and sensitive to content that feels like it’s been shaped by advertiser interests. There’s a fine line between integrating sponsored content seamlessly and making it feel too much like an advertisement, which can alienate readers.
3. Diverse Audience Needs: As magazines move online, their audiences often become more segmented, with different groups expecting different things. What appeals to one segment of subscribers might not resonate with another, making it difficult to create content that pleases everyone while also aligning with advertiser goals.
4. Advertiser Demand for Data: Corporate advertisers today expect more detailed data and analytics on how their ads are performing, leading publishers to sometimes prioritize content that drives specific metrics rather than content that might be more valuable or engaging for subscribers.
5. The Shift to Digital and Social Media: Advertisers now have more direct ways to reach their audiences through digital platforms, often bypassing traditional publishers altogether. This can lead to a tension between creating high-quality content that appeals to subscribers and meeting the demands of advertisers who may prefer more direct, measurable returns on their investments.
6. Economic Pressures: The financial pressures on traditional publishing models have increased, leading some publishers to rely more heavily on advertising revenue. This can result in a greater focus on content that pleases advertisers, potentially at the expense of subscriber interests.
7. Content Saturation: With so much content available online, maintaining subscriber loyalty has become harder. Subscribers are quick to abandon publications that they feel are not providing enough value or that seem too focused on commercial interests.

Balancing these pressures is indeed challenging, and it may be harder now than it was in the past when the media landscape was less fragmented, and the lines between editorial content and advertising were more clearly drawn.