The Wall Street Journal delivered its first quarterly magazine to subscribers this past Saturday, and I can't for the life of me figure out why
Well, OK, yes I can. I just don't think it makes any sense for the brand.
WSJ is a glossy, large (and odd) format magazine that promises to provide all the cutting-edge information about goods and services that the discerning Journal subscriber wants to know. It looks like any number of other rags that cater to the uber-consumer demographic. Its content, at least this first outing, is comfortably generic and forgettable. So are the ads, of which there are a lot.
And that's the point, obviously.
The Wall Street Journal subscriber base represents a demographic that many advertisers would covet, especially those purveyors of higher-priced stuff. The talk back when News Corp. first bought the newspaper was all about monetizing the property. Advertising dollars are a natural resource that, while under pressure, require outlets, so the WSJ magazine was created to provide a channel for spending that money.
Think MySpace, only the target audience wears suspenders.
There are a few presumptions about The Wall Street Journal brand that are implicit in this strategy:
- Reading a newspaper is a lifestyle: Daily subjecting oneself to an ink-smudged sheaf of paper in order to access information that is at least 6 hours old is a choice, certainly, but does it illustrate a lifestyle? Subscribers might evidence traits that are similar, from income and politics, to goods and services purchased. They might even read many of the same magazine. But the only behavioral fact the Journal can claim without hesitation is that subscribers receive the newspaper. This is an important distinction, because they're not truly "Journal readers," but rather "people who read the Journal." You can imagine any attribute attached to this fact -- and I'm sure the News Corp. strategists came up with a long list of brand associations -- but, ultimately, isn't the Journal a newspaper/content?
- Access is more important than relevance: If you agree with my last point, this next presumption immediately seems rather misplaced. WSJ magazine is all about sending information (primarily advertising) at subscribers because of their presumed lifestyles, not the real reason(s) they pay for the newspaper. It's actually a gigantic leap of faith to assume that, say, a subscriber who relies on the Journal's in-depth business news reporting would want to read a feature article on a chef. I know the newspaper's "Pursuits" section has been a great success (I like it a lot), but it's consumed within the time, place, and duration of daily newspaper reading. WSJ magazine isn't relevant to any such criteria; it values access over circumstance.
- You can extend anything to everything: Even if you disagree with my reasoning, you still have to question the premise that any brand can be extended to pretty much any thing. The world doesn't need another luxury lifestyle magazine, and it certainly doesn't need one produced by the business and political news experts at the Journal. My prediction is that therell be a WSJ shopping service (a la SkyMall) pretty soon. And a features-based syndicated TV show. "Wall Street, the videogame," with stock trader-action on the Wii. The Journal is a brand that can be applied to anything that might capture viewer eyeballs, right?
Wrong. The message is the message.
Content matters, especially in a world wherein channels, technologies, and experience seem almost infinitely malleable. Ultimately, the Journal is all about content, not lifestyle, and yet the WSJ has given us lifestyle, not content.
It could have been different. The Journal has immensely relevant, unique substance that has a half-life of less than a day, and the experts there could have come up with ways to repurpose or extent that...more in-depth analysis of topics, maybe even some reader/community-driven articles on issues, or whatever.
Instead, we get a really pretty magazine called WSJ. And it just makes me ask why?
Link to original post