Bubble 2.0 (but this time it’s print that’s bursting)
Brad Stone, writing in today’s New York Times, reports that the monthly magazine Business 2.0 will be shut down by parent corporation Time Inc.; the October issue will be its last. Business 2.0 debuted in 1998, during the ballooning of the Internet bubble that would ultimately burst two years later. But for a brief period Business 2.0, along with The Industry Standard, Fast Company and Red Herring, were the magazines to read in terms of keeping track of changing paradigms and “new economy†business models. In fact, for a while there these magazines got so fat with advertising that they looked like Silicon Valley versions of Vogue, often exceeding 400 pages. But when the Internet bubble began finally to burst, a lot of the publications that had been started in order to document (or, some would say, profit from) the bubble also shattered and disappeared.
But recently, as we’ve started to enter Bubble 2.0 (i.e. Google buying Youtube — then less than two years old — for $1.65 billion dollars) these magazines, or at least interest in stories about new ventures on the Web, made a comeback. But instead of there being much of a market for print magazines surrounding the New New Economy (Portfolio, anyone?), people are flocking to websites and blogs (because who needs a newsstand when you have an RSS reader?). And so what’s really interesting is that we seem to be witnessing yet another bubble about to burst, with a number of companies going out of business because their business models are no longer sustainable. But instead of it being Internet companies that are doomed, what we’re seeing is a number of print publications — everything from Jane to Life — going out of business because they can’t compete in an increasingly digital marketplace.
….hmm, magazine titles have increased steadily for the last ten years. I have no idea of traffic, but business spends about three times more on print ads than on on-line ads.
Another possible factor for Business 2.0 ending is withering readership across the whole 2.0 promotional genre. On-line reformatting is more likely a fall-back decision in that context.
Remember that the transformative nature of digital communication benefits prints more than screen reading. The screen is still an experimental accessory of digital communication, but print is a long term industry that has happily ingested many other technological transitions. Paper and printing technologies are surging, on-line book retailing continues to drive web commerce and search and discovery engines are bibliographic utilities that frequently point to books.
Yes, there’s no question that it’s not a fair fight; that print has the advantage over screens. Which only makes it even more important and pertinent that stalwarts such as Life, and zeitgeist publications like Business 2.0, are going out of business. Meanwhile, more and more time is devoted to websites. What’s important here is the trend, and I think it’s unmistakable which way this is going.
hmm…., well why would screen reading advocates even be interested in the fate of print? What’s the pay-off here?
As a print advocate I am not that interested in the fate of screen reading and the two formats have been pretty divergent. As you point out news posting is almost all screen based. Monographic book publishing, on the other hand, is almost all print based. The two formats seem to be on their own separate tangents.
There really is no future defining screen reading behaviors from print models or the other way around. They are very distinctive each with exclusive interface attributes. In my view, the future is going to emerge from un-foreseen consequences of the interplay of distinctly different reading formats. For example the mass imaging of print books to enable searching across wide collections can germinate trends in print rather than screen reading or print catalogs and consumer magazines can send traffic to on-line retailing as do print book sales.
If screen reading is going to fulfill its role it should attend to its own innovations and refinements. That’s the way print reading developed itself.
Are you a print advocate or a content advocate? I couldn’t care less about formats, truth be told; it’s about reaching people with an idea or a story. People can stare at empty screens or stroke blank pieces of paper; that’s not the point. These things are conveyances for content, and that’s what’s important. In the end, I just want to be wherever eyes are.
I am a format enthusiast. The medium is the message and a change of format changes meaning. Crucial subtopics are science and behavior based regarding the way we learn and the tactics of communication. These issues are not small in the course of politics, governance and trajectories of history. False dicotomies and polarities are decoys and distractions. We need to understand our vulnerabilities.
During most of the 19th century the news was posted weekly. Later at the end of the 19th century mechanical type composition enabled news to be posted daily.
Now we have news posted hourly. Its still news, (some would even say its the same news) but it has a different grip on our lives and thinking. These are largely effects of changing formats and reading behaviors.
Content will always be the king and I feel, by people reading about 2.0 online and answering, is sure saying a lot about internet does work for magazines, news but it’s going to take creative thinking.
I do believe, print media will be dead in years to come. Though I agree content is the king, I welcome the future and changes it will bring.