Survival of the Smartest
Let’s not bury the lede: the publishing industry is in trouble.
Magazines are struggling to survive as advertising revenue evaporates, and the rules of engagement–literally–change. In the first half of 2009, 279 magazines folded according to a MediaFinder.com survey cited by FOLIO:
Given all of that it would seem logical–nay, imperative–that publishers, CEOs, COOs editors and the rest of content generating masses reach deep into their creative souls to fix the problems that plague the industry.
Alas, a quick read (or even a slow, thorough one) of FOLIO: magazine’s So What Business Are You In feature seems to indicate that the C-suite at most major publishing houses still does not get it. And by “it,” I mean the severity of the situation.
In this series of articles penned by noted magazine professionals (including Hearst’s vice president and general manager, John Loughlin, and New York’s Larry Burstein), we get the same rote recantation of standard operating procedure,i.e the “same ol’, same ol’,” namely:
- We’re platform agnostic
- We’re diversifying our revenue streams
- We’re investing in technology
It’s almost as if each of the interviewees is more concerned with presenting a brave face, instead of taking the conversation in a new direction. In fact, not a single one of these leaders within the industry mentions the one “buzz word” that they actually should: Innovation.
To be fair, there are some good ideas here.
The Atlantic’s president, Justin Long, gets points for talking about a holistic business strategy for creating profitable brands to lessen the dependence on advertising dollars, and Technology Review’s Kathleen Kennedy hits it out of the park with her emphasis on diversifying the content distribution model using new delivery methods, specifically mobile apps and Kindle apps.
But by and large, the majority of these folks put innovation and R&D below the fold. Not a single mention of trying to harness the power of social networks (though everyone talks about community), and working to create new ways to engage the audience with new forms of content. In addition, there’s very little mention of organizational changes to get away from the highly-inefficient publishing process that soaks up time and resources.
Now, I’m not saying I have all the answers, but it just seems a tad disturbing that the level of this conversation hasn’t moved much in the past year. Perhaps that’s just being in shock. Or maybe it’s simply nature’s way of showing us who will and won’t survive, because at the end of the day it’s not about who gets it right, it’s about who gets it right first. Call it an imposition of Darwinian logic, call it a reckoning, but in the end the magazines left standing will the ones who took a risk and tried to do something new.
