Just two days ago, I read about how magazines should launch websites (and actually feature content on it, gee, go figure) to promote magazine launches. I asked “what happens when the beancounters realize that the Web is simply more efficient.”
I did not have to wait for the answer: a whopping six months after Shock launched, the parent company, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. decided to shutter Shock (the magazine) and keep ShockU.com (the website) going. Traffic seems to be tiny, though.
Folks, is this the future of magazines? Launch a magazine, realize it’s not as efficient as the Web considering input vs. output… I read how Rupert Murdoch was amazed at how high the return from digital media was given how little investment he was making in them (off digital media assets of his magazines). Of course, he went out and bought IGN and MySpace for over $1 billion.
All to say, will more and more magazines shutter the magazine and focus on online? I thought established magazines were safe, but even FHM shut down its US site, and FHM had well over 1M paying subscribers… plus the “recycled readership.”
At least ShockU.com seems to feature some video, though they seem to be editor picks from around the Web. They do not seem to be producing video though, though for a magazine called “shock” maybe it’s best to sample from shocking stuff from around the Web.
I have long been telling magazine companies that their salvation to avoid repeating the mistakes of Web 1994-2000 is to get into video.
[UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: I should clarify one thing: I certainly do not think all magazines should have video on their websites. I think all magazines should get aggressive about the Web. As per video, it really only applies to visual magazines, such as Maxim, FHM, SI.com, but not say Vanity Fair or Esquire, at least not as much. GQ being fashion would work, and Esquire could too, if done right. For a deeper analysis, click here].
Of course, I am biased since we produce thousands of video at WatchMojo.com and would love to partner with most of these companies, the problem is many magazines have twacked cost structures, hiring people to produce video in-house is crazy when you have a full staff of writers getting paid big bucks to “pump out” an article a month.
You get my point. Online, it’s all about content and plenty of it. We’re voracious readers.
A good analogy is this: A magazine’s offline strategy is akin to getting a magazine at home, which a reader starts reading, but soon puts down and leaves hanging around their place to read over the course of a few days, or weeks. Online, you’re on a plane and you go through the proverbial magazine halfway through the flight. You then get angsty and need more. Sort of like alcohol I suppose. It’s an addiction.
If you’re going to compete online, you need quality, but also need quantity. Get with it or step aside.
Subscribe: