Media Brain Trust: Death watch edition
Filed under: Media
The recession has already claimed its share of media properties, but, while the economy may or may not have touched bottom already, nobody who knows anything about anything thinks the closures are about to stop. The only question is: Who's next?As a veteran of two high-profile media casualties (Radar and Condé Nast Portfolio), I have a particularly keen interest in this question. So, to shed some light on it, I've assembled what shall forthwith be known as the Media Brain Trust: a group of several dozen editors in chief, publishers, producers, developers, executives, consultants and others whose views about what's going on in the media industry I've found to be especially astute over the years.
I put the question to them: What media brands do you expect to see disappear in the next 12 months or so?
BusinessWeek. This was the clear consensus favorite, and it should come as no surprise, seeing as it was only two weeks ago that McGraw-Hill announced that it was reviewing "strategic options" for the 80-year-old weekly. Those options don't look good to my Brain Trustees.
"I don't think anyone will buy it, and McGraw-Hill will not stomach its continued loss," says one newspaper executive, speaking for many.
Other weeklies. It's not just BusinessWeek. With their high printing and shipping costs and their focus on news rather than less-perishable features, all weeklies appear susceptible to competition from the web. After BW, the title mentioned most frequently was Entertainment Weekly. "I hate to include this on the list, as I was among those who helped get this Time Inc. book up and into the black," says former managing editor Cable Neuhaus (now editorial director* of Newsmax), "but the economics may not be in its favor anymore." "I have to think that EW will eventually succumb," says another editor who has worked in the category.
Many others singled out Newsweek. "Don Graham's shareholder letter seemed to me to indicate that that new approach was a last chance," says one publishing veteran with experience on both the editorial and business sides. Another, similarly experienced respondent argues that Newsweek will survive, but that "has more to do with its history in a family-run company, and the actual and psychical price of shutting it down, than with its performance."
Then there's TV Guide, another popular choice, especially since it changed hands last year for the bargain price of $1. "The new owners separated the magazine from the digital business, which means the end for the magazine because it didn't adapt to the new, 1,000-channel world well," predicts a well-known media entrepreneur.
Other business magazines. As with weeklies, my Trustees see them as particularly imperiled and less resistant to the flight of ad dollars from print to digital than other types of glossy publications. "This is one area in which the web really will kill magazines," says one. "You can take your time with food and fashion; business information you need now, and you don't need slick production values to go with it."
Other monthlies. Two other magazine categories that my Brain Trust considers vulnerable are men's interest and women's fashion; both are seen as carrying more titles than they can currently support. Multiple respondents identified Men's Journal, Details, W and Marie Claire as the least likely survivors. A number of people also predicted that Conde Nast Publications will shut down one of its two foodie titles, either Gourmet or Bon Apetit.
Some of the other responses I received:
* "Minneapolis/St. Paul newspapers -- they almost have to merge -- Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Herald"
* "Mediaite feels a bit doomed."
* "I think lots of little association and special-interest magazines are going to go away. Wildlife Conservation is already gone. Natural History? AAA's Car and Travel? They can probably serve their audiences almost as well online, at least."
* "San Francisco: first major US city without a daily newspaper as SF Chron either goes all-online or weekend edition only. (I tend not to subscribe to the meme that daily newspapers will simply vanish. Over the next two years I think that's online- or weekend-only will generally be the first stop on the way to either extinction or some new attenuated existence. There's enough perceived value in these old brands that somebody will keep them afloat on a limited basis just for speculation.)"
* "Monster.com: how can this company survive with no job inventory? Also, their stock has been murdered. Un-agile, run by finance guys -- the tech equivilent to old world media."
* "All off-line music magazines will die. Sorry."
* "Fox Business. It's losing an insane amount of money, it has no prospects for ever becoming profitable, and Rupert isn't some kind of squishy owner who'll happily keep it on at a loss indefinitely. I also have my doubts about WSJ. (Not the WSJ, just the glossy mag.) For much the same reasons, but also because it seems to be incapable of committing journalism."
* "I can't imagine Adweek and The Hollywood Reporter making it through the year in their current configuration; probably the only thing saving them is managerial confusion."
* From David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning former tax policy reporter for The New York Times:
News organizations run by people not steeped in news (Zell's papers) will wither as they try to please audiences instead of tell them what journalists believe they need to know and as they kow-tow to the powerful. The mass of readers, listeners and viewers (even the economically above average mass favored by advertisers) want an advocate who stands up to power and those organizations that embrace their audience -- as opposed to their advertisers and sources -- generally will retain their audience.
Chances that the NYT, WSJ, WaPost will go out of business -- zero.
Chances that BW, Time and Newsweek will go out of business -- small but possible.
Chances that a dozen cities of 25,000 or more population will have no general interest daily newspaper in two years -- close to 100%.
Chances that those politicians inclined to line their pockets will be emboldened by the disappearance or weakening of local newspapers -- limitless.
About the Media Brain Trust: Responses were solicited and supplied by email. More than 100 sources were polled; roughly one-third participated. In the interest of encouraging candor, participants were promised anonymity, although some volunteered to be identified by name. Stay tuned for future Brain Trust installments.
*Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly identified Cable Neuhaus as the editor in chief of Newsmax. He is editorial director.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-05-2009 @ 3:38PM
Ken Hoagland said...
Add to probable mortal self-inflicted wound any newspaper, like the Houston Chronicle, that fails to accept some sort of "pay wall" on the paper's website. While the print version here in Houston has shrunk to almost nothing and almost every good reporter and editor has been given walking papers, the poorly designed Chron website nevertheless provides a daily reminder to readers that print subscriptions are wasted money. (See Darwin on consequences of failure to adapt to changing environment).
Reply
8-05-2009 @ 5:37PM
doc said...
ken, whats a "pay wall"?
i'm still laughing because jeff bercovci used "media" "brain" and "trust" in the same sentence, there are no brains in media, and i sure don't trust 'em....
8-06-2009 @ 11:04PM
John Huckleberry said...
25 to 50 years from now, when everyone is going deaf, blind and mad by age 40 is the norm due to digital, we'll all wonder whatever happen to print, tape and vinyl.
8-06-2009 @ 3:07PM
john pezzullo said...
FOOD FOR THOUGHT, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. Is it not an American tridition to have a morning newspaper? What has happened to cause this? and are we still seperating the haves from the havenots,computers are fine but not every on can afford one. perhaps we will get back to local paper who have no national agenda. Just think about it
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 3:07PM
Jim said...
I dropped the Montgomery Advertiser because they became a voice of one party. The newspaper is biased and slanted becomming propaganda, not news. The same thing happened in Germany before WW2. There are to many parallels. Is Gannet owned by George Soros? I wonder why he is buying America?
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 3:08PM
Steven Rau said...
Look for Forbes to do the smart thing and cut back to monthly frequency plus two, maybe three special issues: The Billionaires; The 400 (Richest in America); and possibly the Forbes 2000 (largest global companies). Their print product is much less in danger of being cannibalized by its web site than the "news" dailies and weeklies.
Steve
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 3:08PM
KNUTE9 said...
If people had read BusinessWeek issue April 12, 2006 they would have been ahead of the curve.....topic's....."Mr.Risk (Paulson) goes to Washington"......."Inside Wall Street's Culture of Risk"........and it had a time line projecting GM bankruptcy. To bad people did heed their warnings.
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 3:08PM
tasteforfree said...
@KNUTE9 - Do you have URLs to those articles? ;)
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 3:30PM
mobileguy said...
What do you think about the magazines going into mobile? I've been very interested in the joint print-mobile ad sales being done by fashion magazines like Lucky. The Conde Nast folks are saying it has been successful in boosting ad page revenue.
It kind of makes sense though. What better for a fashion magazine, than to have a portable digital version that can give you video, show you where to find the products, and search across the magazine? Seems like this is much closer to the point of purchase (and maybe Apple could tell you that they are near a store), which advertisers would be interested in. Magazines are a mobile media - seems like a natural extension.
I read Men's Journal. Would love to see it on my iPhone.
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 4:36PM
Brian O'Leary said...
While polls of informed industry insiders have their place, I would have liked to have seen more analysis of circulation, advertising and likely profitability of the titles that made the list. It's easy to point at BW or EW or (name your weekly here) and say, "huge losses here" or "not sustainable", but at the level of 33 "trustees", I'm not sure this is anything better than conventional wisdom.
Reply
8-06-2009 @ 11:04PM
algonquin j. calhoun said...
magazines will soon be a thing of the past...too much free content online
Reply
10-15-2009 @ 7:20PM
Mediaman said...
I have been writing for years that newspapers and print magazines in general were the buggy whips of media (in)digestion.
I also noted that the revolutionary business model for newspapers in particular had to include a replacement for the print subscription model, local classified advertising, real estate advertising, and local news, all with links to the top sites in each category.
In this business model newspapers are in a position to deliver the "value package" that American consumers and businesses require to be part of the Internet marketplace; if they don't lead they have to follow, until they are choked to death by the dust of their competitors.
That model is for newspapers to become local/regional ISP's by gaining access to the infrastructure now monopolized by Cable and Telco.
The new FCC's Chairwoman has Net Neutrality on the top of her "to do" list and the Newspaper industry just has to convince her that separating Content from Infrastructure is in the best interests of America and Free Speech.
If we believe the newspaper-as-speech model is vital to politics, local news, free speech and commerce, then the newspaper-as-ISP business model offers the best hope for long term viability and in forcing needed changes in the monopolistic control of Infrastructure. The FCC has to do it's part, but newspapers must develop a sense of urgency-and deal making- to gain some momentum.
Do I hear 'AOL" or "Yahoo" or maybe an unknown, tech-ready Content partner being romanced to this new "tune?" Being whispered around as newspaper partners?
Maybe some additional impetus from the Microsoft/Yahoo marketing deal could happen: it's not a big stretch to see Ballmer and Bartz (I called Carol Bartz to whisper about this myself-no return calls yet) sitting down with newspaper industry reps to suggest that 50,000,000 or so daily eyeballs might be worth some effort.
The only impetus for Search is advertising, and if newspapers (and maybe magazines) can become the new Content Portal, become more important to consumers than the "one trick ponies" that are current browsers, well, my friends, we could see some real Content and service development.
But, NPA don't "study" too long; somebody will take your place quickly.
Do I hear Craig's List whispering in the corner?
Reply
8-11-2009 @ 1:54PM
jeff_ab said...
What an arcane concept.
option 1)Kill trees. process the pulp into paper.
Harvest corn. drill petroleum. Process the oil into ink
Ship ink and paper all over the planet and burn more oil.
Print data (usually of questionable accuracy and with a short lifespan) onto said dead trees with the dead corn and petroleum.
Now ship that product (burning more petroleum) to households where it is used once or twice then placed in trash or recycle bin and shipped again somewhere else. Likely added to a landfill (yeah some people re-use and recycle, but most don't)
or... option 2)
burn a bit of coal or nukepower to create electrons to power a server and a telecom infrastructure. Burn a bit more to power the reader's computer. It is delivered faster, more surgically, and the ability to prove ad impressions is better too. And with the advent of kindle and smartphones, it even can be carried onto a commuter train.
How does option 1 make any sense any more?
Reply