Custom Means Quality
A passage in a recent eMarketer article, Magazines Run Online, reminds us once again why ‘quantity’ isn’t the end-all, be-all.
“Years of inflated circulation rate bases have backfired,” says Ms. Krol. “Magazines chased volume, banking on a larger set of readers to justify advertising rate increases. Unfortunately, that bloated universe of readers often proved less profitable.”
Some publishers, such as Newsweek, have responded by pruning their audiences to a smaller, more desirable demographic.
The big move in publishing, however, is online. But the transition may be coming too late for many titles.
The article is focused on consumer titles, but the lesson is clear: You cannot chase “all” readers–and practically give away your content ($10/year subscription for some of the titles to which I subscribe)–and expect to stay profitable.
That’s one of the reasons custom publishing hasn’t hit the skids like so many other types of publishing these days. In custom magazines, the content is targeted to a specific (sometimes, an extremely specific) audience. These people want what they’re getting (quality, not quantity). The content is valuable to them.
Great article.
The challenge for custom magazine publishers will be to continue proving the effectiveness of their titles and demonstrating ROI for clients.
Provided the quality is maintained, there should be no problem and, as you say, custom magazines will remain resilient.
One client recently mentioned she is doing more custom print publications aimed at their B2B customers because they spend a bunch of time at airports and want quality information they don’t need a screen to access. Interesting take… I agree that narrow-casting with quality content is the way to go.