Today in Media Life, staff writer Diego Vasquez interviews the new publisher and editorial director of a magazine called Success which since 1891 has been washed out and folded up more times than your favorite t-shirt. I especially like the use of the word 'vision' in the subhead to this story entitled, "The relaunching of Success, yet again."
Hey, it's a free country. If you want to open a drive-in movie theater in New England, bring back peanut butter in a barrell, launch a line of Victorian wear, re-introduce Bowler hats, it is your right to do so., right? To paraphrase Dick Nixon, "You're entitled to your opinion even though you're wrong."
It just seems to me that the two words success and magazine â€" especially a new old hard copy magazine in this most unsuccessful of times in print media â€" is akin to the common coupling of love and marriage nin song and verse at a time when 50% or more of all wedded couples fall out of love and stop subscribing to marriage.
In fairness, there's some talk in the interview about an online component to this new and improved, or more Successful magazine. But here's what I don't get: if the online component is really, really good, what compels me to spend $5.95 for the hard copy magazine unless I'm attempting a 1930's retro re-decoration of the house in tribute to an era when people actually bought and read magazines?
If magazines were a brand new idea today, knowing what you know about the immediacy, economy, and reach of the online world, if someone came to you with the idea of a printed volume featuring long lead times, comparatively huge distribution costs, and an estimated worldwide audience of 100,000 people, what would your reaction be? Oh goody? Just what we need?
Link to original post