Comments on: What Kind of Publisher Are You? http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/ The (r)Eevolution of Media Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:23:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: everybuddy.org » Newspapers need to come out of “hiding” http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-104766 everybuddy.org » Newspapers need to come out of “hiding” Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:20:08 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-104766 [...] The problem is, that’s probably an area where newspapers need to adjust they way they work. As Scott Karp puts it, they need to decide what kind of publisher they are. [...] [...] The problem is, that’s probably an area where newspapers need to adjust they way they work. As Scott Karp puts it, they need to decide what kind of publisher they are. [...]

]]> By: links for 2007-01-02 « David Black http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-52749 links for 2007-01-02 « David Black Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:23:21 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-52749 <!--%kramer-ref-pre%-->[...] What Kind of Publisher Are You? » Publishing 2.0 “In print, readers can only be readers — and for many people, that’s still all they want to do. But online, readers can be participants and value creators — the community is interconnected, interactive, engaged.” (tags: internet social media newspapers migration trends) [...]<!--%kramer-ref-post%--> [...] What Kind of Publisher Are You? » Publishing 2.0 “In print, readers can only be readers — and for many people, that’s still all they want to do. But online, readers can be participants and value creators — the community is interconnected, interactive, engaged.” (tags: internet social media newspapers migration trends) [...]

]]> By: Michael Turro http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43593 Michael Turro Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:42:48 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43593 Understood... but the print product is well on its way to that on its own. It may take a number of years, but eventually the dollars online will outweigh the dollars in print. For any publisher that needs to make a profit that will be enough all on its own to make print a secondary consideration... no choice needed. There may be publishers who will stay with a print-first model, but I would be willing to bet that their readership will be fairly small and stagnant and they will most likely struggle to keep their product afloat. Without a vibrant community that lives online supporting its print versions most magazines will sputter out into irrelevance. "...Chris Anderson is talking about opening up the entire process of creating the content that appears in the magazine as well as online..." He may be... but his ideas are clearly cut for the web. The print process will benefit from the practice of these ideas online IF the print magazine that's produced heeds what we have learned from centuries of working in print media and does not try to replicate the non-linear fray that lives online. Ultimately I just don't think its possible to do "Transparency" in print... the very nature of the medium requires a certain amount of editorial reflection and guidance. Chaos may thrive in digital networks, but on the printed page it comes out as noise. Understood… but the print product is well on its way to that on its own. It may take a number of years, but eventually the dollars online will outweigh the dollars in print. For any publisher that needs to make a profit that will be enough all on its own to make print a secondary consideration… no choice needed.

There may be publishers who will stay with a print-first model, but I would be willing to bet that their readership will be fairly small and stagnant and they will most likely struggle to keep their product afloat. Without a vibrant community that lives online supporting its print versions most magazines will sputter out into irrelevance.

“…Chris Anderson is talking about opening up the entire process of creating the content that appears in the magazine as well as online…”

He may be… but his ideas are clearly cut for the web. The print process will benefit from the practice of these ideas online IF the print magazine that’s produced heeds what we have learned from centuries of working in print media and does not try to replicate the non-linear fray that lives online.

Ultimately I just don’t think its possible to do “Transparency” in print… the very nature of the medium requires a certain amount of editorial reflection and guidance. Chaos may thrive in digital networks, but on the printed page it comes out as noise.

]]> By: Scott Karp http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43559 Scott Karp Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:42:52 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43559 Michael, The difference is that Chris Anderson is talking about opening up the entire process of creating the content that appears in the magazine as well as online, which is fundamentally disruptive to traditional print magazine editorial process. It's not an "ancillary digital product" -- it's a product that could become the primary product, thus making the print product a secondary consideration. Michael,

The difference is that Chris Anderson is talking about opening up the entire process of creating the content that appears in the magazine as well as online, which is fundamentally disruptive to traditional print magazine editorial process. It’s not an “ancillary digital product” — it’s a product that could become the primary product, thus making the print product a secondary consideration.

]]> By: Michael Turro http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43557 Michael Turro Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:34:20 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43557 Tough choices? You're kidding right? Print and digital media are so extremely different at what they do well it's really kind of laughable that a publisher would need to choose one or the other. The idea that magazine publishers can only make print artifacts just doesn't stand up to the actual history of the magazine industry. Countless successful publishers have long used ancillary products such as books, trade shows, conferences and television programs to augment their bottom lines... a thriving and successful web presence should be no different. What it comes down to, for traditional print publishers at least, is whether or not they want to leave that big and growing chunk of revenue from digital media on the table for someone else to take or will they create an ancillary digital product that capitalizes on all the things that the web and digital technology offer. Tough choices? You’re kidding right? Print and digital media are so extremely different at what they do well it’s really kind of laughable that a publisher would need to choose one or the other.

The idea that magazine publishers can only make print artifacts just doesn’t stand up to the actual history of the magazine industry. Countless successful publishers have long used ancillary products such as books, trade shows, conferences and television programs to augment their bottom lines… a thriving and successful web presence should be no different.

What it comes down to, for traditional print publishers at least, is whether or not they want to leave that big and growing chunk of revenue from digital media on the table for someone else to take or will they create an ancillary digital product that capitalizes on all the things that the web and digital technology offer.

]]> By: Martin Stabe » links for 2006-12-17 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43251 Martin Stabe » links for 2006-12-17 Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:26:12 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43251 [...] Publishing 2.0: What Kind of Publisher Are You? “Magazines face the same terrible quandary as newspapers — online audiences and revenues are where the growth are, but that growth is nowhere near sufficient, at least from a revenue perspective, to reverse the polarity from print to online.” (tags: magazines online) [...] [...] Publishing 2.0: What Kind of Publisher Are You? “Magazines face the same terrible quandary as newspapers — online audiences and revenues are where the growth are, but that growth is nowhere near sufficient, at least from a revenue perspective, to reverse the polarity from print to online.” (tags: magazines online) [...]

]]> By: tim http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-42732 tim Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:38:07 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-42732 I agree with Ted, magazines are at their best when they do what they're best at: deep, insightful, exploratory journalism. The magazine, because of its slow monthly frequency, is the only (news) media left that really gets to take some time with an issue, giving readers a more complete or unique perspective. Quitter is operating under one massively faulty assumption -- that he and his magazine can surprise anyone. There is no information scarcity anymore. Whatever happens, people talk about, whether he decides to assign a story or not. And having his staff blog doesn't necessarily accomplish anything, there's no direction or business model there, so it could end up being a complete waste of time, fatally weakening the magazine in the process. Oh wait, maybe that's the surprise? :) I agree with Ted, magazines are at their best when they do what they’re best at: deep, insightful, exploratory journalism. The magazine, because of its slow monthly frequency, is the only (news) media left that really gets to take some time with an issue, giving readers a more complete or unique perspective.

Quitter is operating under one massively faulty assumption — that he and his magazine can surprise anyone. There is no information scarcity anymore. Whatever happens, people talk about, whether he decides to assign a story or not.

And having his staff blog doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything, there’s no direction or business model there, so it could end up being a complete waste of time, fatally weakening the magazine in the process.

Oh wait, maybe that’s the surprise? :)

]]> By: ted http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-42521 ted Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:33:31 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-42521 I strongly disagree that this will degrade the quality of the print magazine. Have you read Wired lately? I do on airplanes, and while they do publish a ton of stuff, the tone is way too "magaziney" for people who spend any time online. There's a certain archness, slickness, whatever you want to call it, that attempts to couch the obvious fear of the writers that they, in any small way 'don't get it'. I would hope that transparency would create less of a wall between writers/editors and the readers, and thus improve the magazine and set it apart from other magazines steeped in specific magazine conventions. I strongly disagree that this will degrade the quality of the print magazine. Have you read Wired lately? I do on airplanes, and while they do publish a ton of stuff, the tone is way too “magaziney” for people who spend any time online. There’s a certain archness, slickness, whatever you want to call it, that attempts to couch the obvious fear of the writers that they, in any small way ‘don’t get it’. I would hope that transparency would create less of a wall between writers/editors and the readers, and thus improve the magazine and set it apart from other magazines steeped in specific magazine conventions.

]]> By: Techmeme http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43013 Techmeme Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43013 <!--%kramer-pre%--> What Kind of Publisher Are You? — Business 2.0 editor Josh Quittner pushes back on Chris Anderson's treatise on "radical transparency" in magazine publishing: … Editors like Chris and Josh are facing a moment of reckoning —<!--%kramer-post%--> What Kind of Publisher Are You? — Business 2.0 editor Josh Quittner pushes back on Chris Anderson’s treatise on “radical transparency” in magazine publishing: … Editors like Chris and Josh are facing a moment of reckoning —

]]> By: Technically Speaking http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-43014 Technically Speaking Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-43014 <!--%kramer-pre%-->What Kind of Publisher Are You<!--%kramer-post%--> What Kind of Publisher Are You

]]> By: rexblog.com: Rex Hammock’s weblog http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-45150 rexblog.com: Rex Hammock’s weblog Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-45150 <!--%kramer-pre%--> What Kind of Publisher Are You? | Publishing 2.0 <!--%kramer-post%--> What Kind of Publisher Are You? | Publishing 2.0

]]> By: Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/comment-page-1/#comment-45151 Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://publishing2.com/2006/12/15/what-kind-of-publisher-are-you/#comment-45151 <!--%kramer-pre%-->are going to have to decide which is more important, online or print, because telegraphing what your cover story is going to be doesn’t really work for print mags. Thanks to Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 for pointing to Josh’s post, and for writing one of his own. Technorati Tags: long+tail, media2.0, transparency, Wired <!--%kramer-post%--> are going to have to decide which is more important, online or print, because telegraphing what your cover story is going to be doesn’t really work for print mags. Thanks to Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 for pointing to Josh’s post, and for writing one of his own. Technorati Tags: long+tail, media2.0, transparency, Wired

]]>