Thursday, April 20, 2006

Magazine Day, NYC.

Have you heard? Today is the 10th annual Magazine Day, being held at the "swanky" Marriott Marquis. The morning's general session is titled:
"The role of the increasingly demanding consumer and what this means for the magazine business (um, death?)"
After this idea-crammed hour, attendees will have the opportunity to sit in on two of the following four "breakout" sessions:
• The "inter-net": a beginner's guide.
• The most comfortable blinders on the market.
• Amway.
• How to keep a straight face while using terms like "shed light" and "touch points" in meetings.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Advice for a writing intern, by chance? 21 years old and getting jaded already. Is this what's ahead for me?


....God, I hope so.

- Steve the Intern

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what on earth is that image? is that an ostritch in a business suit burying his head in human flesh? is anyone else puzzled by this?

9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean you really don't get it?

Damb Republican.

12:57 PM  
Blogger Evil Discussor said...

Damb.

That's like 'damn' and 'lamb' put together.

Retardb.

1:52 PM  
Blogger copyranter said...

I like Damb. it works, somehow.

1:57 PM  
Blogger Evil Discussor said...

Damb you, Ranter, and your totally agreeable ways.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous makethelogobigger said...

"...is anyone else puzzled by this?"

Strangely, I find myself turned on by it.

8:45 PM  
Blogger francophony said...

copyranter, although i really enjoy your blog, it really surprises me how much contempt you have for the industry that provides you with a comfortable living. there's nothing inherently wrong or evil with magazines; they're actually pretty enjoyable. and, while the industry may suffer a decline, magazines are not going to disappear completely; no matter how many people turn to websites and blogs for entertainment, computers will never prove as handy in many situations that a magazine does: on the toilet, in the tub, curled up in a chair on a lazy weekend afternoon...i just don't believe the average person, lookingn to relax (not at work; not in blog mode, etc.) wants to squint at a computer screen for hours on end in the pursuit of leisurely reading. and yes, i know that some people do already do just that, but in general, i firmly believe computers will never render books, magazines or other printed materials obsolete. my question: why take such delight in the struggles of the magazine industry?

9:38 PM  
Blogger copyranter said...

It's not the struggles. and it's not delight. (OK, a little delight). Magazines (and newspapers) have been RIDICULOUSLY slow to even cast their eyes down from their paper towers at computers. and now, they're woefully behind a very fast moving curve. the internet is about free content. and these idiots took too long to throw away their moldy business models. so, the ad dollars are going elsewhere and it's their own stupid fault. Darwinism.

4:35 AM  
Anonymous Von K said...

Are you saying all magazines should be free?

9:17 AM  
Blogger copyranter said...

no, all their online content should be though.

9:29 AM  
Blogger copyranter said...

also, their cover prices should all be about a buck. you make money from ad rates, not screwing consumers.

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm an outsider so this post is pure barstool bullshit. The regular posters know far more than me about the industry, so maybe they'll set me straight.

Perhaps online ad rates don't yet support Copyranter's free content model so media companies are charging online fees or not posting all their content. (Until someone delivers the Rosetta stone for measuring online site, content and ad effectiveness, a delay in posting content might work well -- dailies hold back the 'premium' content for a day or two, monthlies for a month, etc.)

Maybe ad buyers aren't yet convinced online ads work. Or maybe we haven't figured out the best online ad approach - banner ads are ignored, pop-ups are aggravating, embedded video clips even more so, etc.

And if you're pissed at media companies, why not aim your anger at radio stations who already broadcast their content for FREE but refuse to simulcast over the internet? I imagine WFAN or WABC want to get paid by their advertisers for the NY ex-pats in Nairobi or Memphis who listen over the web. Until they figure out a pricing model, they'll hold back on webcasts.

Maybe a simpler question is, "Does Slate make money or is it still a vanity project?" Does that online magazine or any other site serve as a barometer?

Finally, imagine yourself as a 40 year-old magazine executive. Why risk your nice position by rolling the dice with the web? What's the upside with such a big downside? Why bother?

Seems like a huge business opportunity exists for the people who are equally capable of figuring out the online ad game and effectively communicating their story to the industry.

10:52 AM  
Blogger ohoney said...

Cr,
You are a lamb pie.
Scary-ott Marquis swank?
Oh no.

6:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home