BoSacks isn’t one to hold back. So his recent comments on the print side of the magazine business are making some waves.
In a recent newsletter, BoSacks cites in particular the “charmingly enthusiastic” information in two specific articles – one from Samir “Mr. Magazine” Husni on August launch numbers; the other from MediaPost reporting on solid print magazine readership numbers.
“The bottom line here is what we do with the information we get and how it applies to our everyday job as publishers,” he notes.
Indeed.
“Like most of the industry I have been tracking Mary Meeker’s Time Spent with Media Chart. It has shown how much time the public spends with all types of media. When I started to track it in 2007 time spent with print was 9%. Print now receives about 4% of all time that is spent with media,” he continues.
Then he drops the bomb.
“I think that in the next few years print will go as low as 1% and hover there for quite some time. That doesn’t mean the end of print nor the end of magazines which will still be valued in the billions, but it will be a far cry from the 37 billion dollar revenues we had in 2007.”
One percent? That’s a wildly pessimistic number. We don’t see it happening, for a number of reasons.
“Try to tell this to the editor of People magazine or the CEO of Topix Media Labs,” Samir Husni replied when we asked his thoughts on Bo’s prediction. “In the case of the latter all his money is coming from print and from the newsstands to be more specific.”
Let’s think about the numbers for a minute. The pie – the total amount of media produced and published — is growing. So that 9% of time spent back in 2007 doesn’t really compare minute for minute to the 4% spent today. Yes, it’s a smaller slice … but it’s a much larger pie to carve.
Secondly, Husni notes something interesting about the Mequoda numbers cited in the MediaPost piece: “As for the study did you notice that almost 60% of those who said they read a digital something did not pay for it? If advertisers are leaving or being blocked, where is the money coming from?” Husni asks.
As consumers grow increasingly fed up with ad bloat and other digital advertising nonsense, they are going to be less in love with high cost of all that free digital content. The rapid growth in digital ad blocking proves this out, and advertisers are scrambling to figure out how to work around this.
Meanwhile, for those who claim that print ads are over-indexed, one GFK cross-media study last year showed that print continues to have the highest ROI of all media, at 120%. Advertisers know this, and buy accordingly — print ad revenues rebounded in 2013 according to MPA stats.
Finally, study after study shows that consumers prefer print over digital for pleasure and educational reading. Print remains the dominant medium for magazines. Digital is making gains and publishers are leveraging that channel to help offset print sale dips. Still, some brands are absolutely making a go sans digital – Monocle for one continues to knock it out of the park, with a pull-no-punches understanding that digital is not going to be their savior.
This is not to say that print publishing is a cake walk. Indeed, the industry has changed, radically. The business of print magazines is not for the faint-hearted.
“Things are indeed changing, but the change is going to be like the fire that refines the gold,” Husni continues. “We are going to have better gold in the future.” And better gold will bring better engagement, and an increase in time spent with print.
One thing we absolutely do agree on is the potential in high quality, tightly focused niche titles. And with increasing pressure from other forms of media, printed magazines better be “damned good,” as BoSacks says. “In fact, they will have to be excellent to survive.”
“The print magazine herd will continue to be culled until what is left will be of great value to both the publishers that are still left standing and to the advertisers who want to reach that kind of specific reader, the reader of printed magazines,” he predicts.
We agree, and it’s one of the main reasons that we remain oh so charmingly optimistic that his dire 1% prediction will be proven wrong.
September 20, 2015, 3:58 pm
We keep reading and hearing about the reading public’s love of print. Why then don’t they show that love at the newsstand? Every year newsstand drops double digits in sales. If that is love, I’ll take something else. We keep hearing how advertisers get better ROI in print. That may be true, but then why does advertising in print diminish every year? We keep hearing of the many new titles each year. Why then do all magazine sales show a steep drop in magazines sold? In the same vein why are print subscriptions dropping as well, (if not as fast as newsstand)? In the end, it doesn’t matter how many magazines we print, the only relevant statistic is how many we sell.
Lastly you include this quote, “Try to tell this to the editor of People magazine or the CEO of Topix Media Labs,” Samir Husni replied when we asked his thoughts on Bo’s prediction. “In the case of the latter all his money is coming from print and from the newsstands to be more specific.”
Yes, all People’s money is still coming from print, but their sales have dropped like a rock for many years. Does People make most of its money from print sales? Yes. Is the magazine growing? Decidedly not.
I firmly stand by my prediction. There is no data anywhere to suggest that I am wrong and every trend everywhere to suggest that I am correct. Even still, I also pointed out that what print is left will be extremely valuable to the advertisers, the publishers, to the printers and obviously to the readers who still love print. Yes, what is left will be golden because of its rarity.
September 20, 2015, 5:57 pm
I believe there are more challenges at the newsstand than the printed word. I believe Samir posted a great article on this topic – https://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/it-the-business-model-stupid-the-three-real-reasons-for-single-copy-sales-decline/
Digital content is not superior to paper in every aspect. Print magazines don’t need batteries, and won’t be ruined if you drop them or crush them. Print is readable in all but the dimmest light conditions. You can physically mark the content of print and, I believe, sharing content is more personal in print. Print is physically owned versus viewed on a digital device. There are unique coatings that add to interactivity, inserts for sharing. . . I could go on and on.
Print media is different than other media moving to a digital version – take music for example. Stephen King (who has sold millions of books in both formats) said in an interview for the Huffington Post, “I think books are going to be there for a long, long time to come.” King compares books’ prospects positively with those of CDs and vinyl. “Audio recordings of music have only been around for, I’m going to say, 120 years at the most,” he said. “Books have been around for three, four centuries … There’s a deeply implanted desire and understanding and wanting of books that isn’t there with music.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/stephen-king-books-amazon_n_5878284.html
I think our differences revolve around the amount of “gold” that will exist in print in the future. With something so valuable many will want to be a part of it. An entirely new generation will fall in love with print which will add many more golden opportunities.
September 20, 2015, 8:25 pm
In all the things you said make my point.
1) You say ” Digital content is not superior to paper in every aspect.” that is a suspect opinion but even if totally correct, it isn’t making a difference with magazine buyers.
2) You say ” Print magazines don’t need batteries, and won’t be ruined if you drop them or crush them.” You say that “Print is readable in all but the dimmest light conditions. You can physically mark the content of print and, I believe, sharing content is more personal in print.” All that is true. So what? Where are sales? A better product doesn’t always mean a lucrative success. In this case it doesn’t.
3) You say “Print is physically owned versus viewed on a digital device. There are unique coatings that add to interactivity, inserts for sharing. . . I could go on and on.” Yes again all that is true. When do you or Samir suggest when sales will actually go positive? When will print make the big come back? This year? next year.. in five years?
We agree that there will be many titles that make money. some of them will make gobs of money. But they are the aberration to the over all trend. Let’s have a gentleman’s bet. I say say sales will be down another 10% at the end of the last quarter of 2015. Do you think sales of the industry will go up?
Many printers will do fine and my bet is your company will do very well. That is my hope as you are an excellent and thoughtful company. You also represent the aberration of the industry trends. just as some magazines will do well so will the better printers. That statement doesn’t change the overall trend of the magazine industry.
BoSacks
-30-
September 21, 2015, 8:17 am
Let’s go back to the original point of our discussion – the 1% prediction. I believe the magazine industry will continue to face many challenges, like many other businesses (including printers), in this difficult economy. But do I believe it will reach 1% – no, I do not. There is simply too much opportunity out there for that to happen.
Let’s continue our debate in the coming years and see how that plays out. Consider the new opportunities that don’t even exist today. Like magazines coming from online only companies – who would have guessed that?
Yes, the media landscape is changing. Yes, many old companies that are not innovative are struggling and even failing. But 1%? I’m sorry – I simply cannot agree.