The New York Times' quarterly Play magazine was more sports-focused than USA Today's nascent OpenAir (left), which is more about leading active lifestyles. Still, magazine launches are legendary for their high failure rates -- and that's during good times. No slouch in publishing, the NYT said yesterday that it closed Play less than three years after its February 2006 launch.With the economy now in a tailspin, it's hard to imagine any new magazine gaining much traction -- and that assumes the publisher wields lots of experience, such as Time Inc., Hearst or Conde Nast.
USA Today, on the other hand, is a publisher with newspaper distribution channels. OpenAir, which just published its winter issue, is inserted in USAT. (Play also was an insert.) That's probably a safer choice than trying to get a spot on already-crowded magazine sales racks, which requires doing business with independent distributors.
USA Today tried and failed to pull off rack distribution when it briefly published a consumer technology magazine in 2005, USA Today Now Personal Technology (left).Moon-struck?
I guess USAT Publisher Craig Moon gets credit for trying different ideas. But I recall his aborted attempt to push one of Gannett's papers into yellow pages telephone book publishing. That failed early 1990s effort at the now-shuttered Arkansas Gazette had to have cost Gannett hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now, Moon's at it again with OpenAir; its website optimistically lists four more publication dates through the end of 2009. Given the recession in advertising, how likely will we see any of them?
Please post your thoughts in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
The "talking yellow pages". One of the dumbest ideas in Gannett annals. A couple of clowns made hay with that one and got promoted. In the end, it cost Gannett hundreds of thousands of dollars and dragged advertising further from their real mission.
ReplyDeleteUSAT, was co-publish, by a MAGAZINE'S woman. Cathie Black.
ReplyDeleteHadn't heard of OpenAir, but it sounds interesting. Outdoor rec is actually a niche that might be good to pursue. Folks who ski, backpack, go birding, etc., generally have some disposable income and can shell out lots of cash on gear and toys. And national advertising may be the only thing left to save us. Local companies sure aren't buying.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Play. They hired really good photographers and they had great infographics to go along with the stories that were normally longer and more interesting than you get in SI, ESPN and Sporting
ReplyDeleteNews (but that magazine has become a joke).
It's too bad that to make readership only dwindle and not plummet, people feel they have to cater to the lowest common denominator of reader.
Play was a great magazine: stellar photography and really interesting articles. ESPN does have a good mag and great website with their network. They own sports.
ReplyDeleteGannett really should have taken a cue on how ESPN's site works. It still can feature photography well but also it's well-designed AND it loads fast. Only thing I don't like is when the video automatically starts on the homepage.
We'll all be contractors soon...in the next five years, tops.
So is it smart to focus on creating new products to expand advertising potential? Or it is smarter to narrow in on the core product, which may or may not have a limited capacity for advertising potential?
ReplyDeleteAnd does it matter whether the expanded product (in this case, Open Air) is editorially strong? Or does advertising, or a lack thereof, trump all, regardless of the product's content?
Content isn't the "baby in the cradle" for Gannett in ANY of it's products. Audience Centric is. If the Magazine is targeted to a specific audience, that is all that matters. Sell it to the businesses that want to reach that audience. (Which by Gannett standards is every business everywhere.) Who cares if the content is so lame that it's tossed out before the cover is even opened? The customers, both readers and Advertisers are human and can call it duck sh*t when they see it.
ReplyDeleteUSAT may have better niche products than the community newspapers. Granted.
I know the group I used to work at has HORRIBLE Magazines. The first few issues were very well done. Then the layoffs began, work was shoddy, graphics were sub-par, and content grew droll. Expanding delivery to multiple markets of this waste of of good pulp is money down the drain.
Cut more jobs rather than rethink your products.
I know better than to buy something that reaks of decay. So do advertizeers.
Leave Moon alone. At least he is trying something new. I haven't seen anything new come from the "Community Publishing" division except a bunch of pink slips!
ReplyDeleteThey also might look at this like, "One of our main competitors is gone, so let's take advantage of this situation."
ReplyDelete5:27 AM -- You're right nothing coming from us except for, oh let's say, 80% of the revenues!
ReplyDelete