Somewhere along the way, dead tree editions forgot to die.
Back in 2003, the term “dead tree edition” was a derogatory term used by the digital snobs for the print and paper version of periodicals. According to D. Eadward Tree of Dead Tree Editions blog, “’Dead’ highlighted what the digerati thought printed periodicals soon would be, and ‘tree’ underscored the supposed environmental horrors of turning a renewable resource into a product.”
When Tree launched his blog five years later, he says the name was “meant as a badge of honor,” as in “Yeah, I’m a print geek; you gotta problem with that?” (We sure don’t.)
Tree notes the meaning behind the name has evolved over the last seven years.
“Publishers used to assume that once people ‘went digital,’ they would never go back to print. Human behavior turned out not to be so black and white. People who wouldn’t think of getting their news from a newspaper rather than their phone see nothing incongruous about leaning back with a fashion or hobbyist magazine,” he notes.
And somewhere along the way, “dead tree” magazines simply forgot to die.
“In 2008, magazines were widely predicted to be headed down the same toilet that was (and still is) swallowing the newspaper business. But a funny thing happened on the way to oblivion: Magazine publishers transformed into ‘magazine media’ companies, sporting leaner and more niche-oriented print brands that acted as launching pads for successful digital ventures,” Tree continues.
‘Gone are the glory days of huge newsstand sales and bloated, advertising-subsidized circulation. Yet magazines have found their place in the multimedia publishing world as premium products that deliver steady profits.”
Tree, we’ve certainly enjoyed your forthright and intuitive approach on the subject, and wish you and your blog many more happy years.