I was very happy to see that the 40-page free sample of the World of Warcraft magazine was posted online at last. It was hard working on that project and not being able to show anybody what was taking so long, but nothing could be displayed until Blizzard had approved it. Now that they have, I figure the files have shipped to the printer and the physical magazine should be winging its way to mailboxes (including mine) by early January. Big props to Ryan Vulk, Josh Augustine, Julian Rignall, and the rest of the Future Plus team for weathering the storm and making it look awesome in the process. I think people who actually pick it up and give it a chance will be very impressed.
A few sites picked up the story, and as usual, most of the reader comments on those stories were the same tripe I’ve seen over and over again whenever any blog reports on any magazine. In Kotaku’s user comments, Azures said, “The internet makes them pointless on the most basic level. the internet is killing newspapers, im shocked ANY magazine is still around.”
I was going to post a long response over at Kotaku, but I’ve decided I would rather ramble and look like a crazy person on my own turf.
Like Mom always told me, “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” It’s not just about getting information, it’s about the form that information takes. This applies very strongly to magazines vs. newspapers vs. the Internet. Magazines approach info delivery very differently, but I think newspapers and the Internet share a lot in common with their approaches.
Newspapers were traditionally about getting info fast — so fast, in fact, that for years many papers had multiple editions each day. But if your main product is black text on a white background, as close to instant as you can manage? Yeah, the internet trumps newspapers. But magazines have always been more about entertainment and presentation, something newspapers only did in the Sunday magazine section (note the name!) and the Internet has not quite been able to replicate yet. (Have you ever seen a website that looks like the above — not a home page, but a web page that rich, built to be consumed/read/looked at just once? No, but you’ve seen scans of magazine pages that you can download from websites — proving that people still want the content experience of a magazine, regardless of its business problems.)
In fact, I’d argue that newspapers have had more problems with “the internet stole our immediate content” and magazines have had more problems with “the internet stole our advertising dollars.” Those dollars support the purchase of paper and cover manufacturing costs, so when that well dries up, so does everything else. Most magazines’ editorial content was not so much at fault. As I’ve said before, EGM wrote great articles but died because of poor business decisions by the bean-counters. So…where do newspapers fit into that fiscal reality? They don’t. Azures is using a classic slippery slope fallacy with “dead papers means dead magazines” when they are more or less unrelated.
I see so many magazines on so many topics at my local newsstand/bookstore/supermarket — but people seem to think that when they stopped reading their old standard gaming magazine that magazines as a whole ceased to exist — and what’s more, gaming magazines can never can exist again. Not even if they try a new approach? Not even if they target exactly what they’re doing to their specific audience? Not even if they have basically nothing in common with the magazines that have gone out of business? It’s just gamers living with blinders on again. It’s easier to assume a bleak future than to investigate a challenging present.
Yes, I’m biased. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Well said. I think the magazine really has a place for people looking for something a little different than internet fare. I've also noticed that as I'm getting older I appreciate what that format has to offer more.
Of course, I would argue that of course some random person on Kotaku probably doesn't get it. But then, that person probably doesn't have an income with which to afford a subscription to said magazine, so …
Yeah, I realize that's probably unfair. I shouldn't make blanket generalizations. Hell, I read kotaku.
So yeah, four paragraphs to say “Yes, I agree.” Impressive, ne?
I love my magazines that I can afford to subscribe to and read. I wish I had more time so I could consume more of a different variety of magazines. However I feel that the biggest problem is the cost of magazines. I know full color printing costs a lot, I've been involved in a book or two in my time and color kills.
However it's starting to feel like magazines are 30-40% ads (Note I said feels like not that they necessarily are.) These ads can distract from the content. If you are reading a review magazine and see a positive review then on the next page or somewhere in the same or a future magazine see a full page ad for the game, that could kill the credibility of the review.
I honestly hope that “World of WarCraft the Magazine” is a huge success and shows magazine publishers that they can raise the prices, run more pages and less issues and not have to rely on ads. I would gladly pay for more content in magazines and less ads.
Another thing magazines could do is run 1 feature article and then run parts of others that are continued online, I'd guess the majority of the magazine's audience has internet access and can read the rest of the article online. This could lead to better content for the magazine but make it so that you have to have the magazine to access the online content. This doesn't mean cut out all online content, the online space could be used to draw in potential subscribers by showing the quality of the work in the magazine.
I don't think magazines that are managed correctly are in danger of going out of business but I do agree with something Dan said on twitter, “they need to evolve…”
You are right that magazines are 30-40% ads…but that is by design! A healthy magazine carries a 65/35 edit-to-ad ratio. There were a few big holiday issues where the ratio went to 50/50, and the ad sales guys were dancing in the aisles, while the editors were asking for more pages to put in more content.
The “read more online” thing is a double-edged sword; you want to offer that convenience (and you want to drive your readers to your site to get more views for those ad banners) but it also sort of undermines the simple fact that, you know, magazines are special and worthwhile.
Wired does a good job of putting its content both in the mag and online. You get the full text online, but you get bold design and a different experience in print. And they have ads coming out the proverbial wazoo. So it can work, and you can exist in print and online simultaneously. But those Conde Nast folks, they're smarter than the average dead magazine's sales staff.
There's a lot to say, but the bottom line I always come back to is: reading a magazine should be an experience of discovery–of stumbling into things you didn't know you wanted/cared about/were interested in. Internet content, especially blogs, are good at being on-demand sources of information; in most cases, you're actively searching for content instead of letting the content find you. The more magazines can invest themselves in providing that kind of service, the more they'll appeal to gamers as “memberships” to the lifestyle they already subscribe to.
While I agree that it is arrogant for anyone to decry the death of ANYthing that is still selling, I still believe it is reasonable to argue the merits of magazines vs. online. In fact, in your rant above, I do not see any reasoning for magazines besides “People still want magazines, so magazines are doing fine.” But I would prefer discussion on WHY people still want magazines. Because to me, they are residuals of a bygone era that people cling to for the same reason some people cling to their home phones, paper billing, or disc media. They like it because it's what they are used to.
You mention that the internet has not been able to replicate the entertainment and presentation of magazines yet. I would point to a 1up.com feature article for comparison. You mention that splash page of the WoW magazine as something the internet cannot approach yet. But you are disregarding the animation and sound of Flash, Java, or even of video. I dare say a pretty magazine spread does not come close to the engrossing atmosphere of an official movie website, with lighting effects, music, and sound effects, characters walking around, etc. Let alone the access to things like games, socializing, and downloadable content.
Also, the discussability of a website outshines the very personal experience of reading a magazine article. Not only can I instantly respond and engage in discourse immediately via commenting systems attached to internet articles (as I am doing now), but the venue of the Web allows me to link an article to a friend by messaging service or even to a group of followers on Twitter. Whereas with a magazine, I'd have to type “Did you see that article in Game Informer? Well, here's a typed rundown; sorry you can't see it quickly and exactly for yourself because I can't link it.” And let's not forget the ability to pull up a quote from an internet article that's 3 years old, found in seconds and linked thanks to search engines.
I believe that magazines aren't dying but I do believe the concept of the magazine is inferior. Their information is laughably outdated unless it is a negotiated exclusive, their delivery is underwhelming vs. the multimedia power of the internet, and their interactivity and referential nature are virtually nil. Except for people who just plain like to read a book in their hands, I don't see any value in a magazine over the internet. They are simply being held up by slow-adapting companies and consumers.
Fair enough. Why magazines still have value:
As Marshall McLuhan famously said, the medium is the message. Magazines explain and present things that are not just different from the Internet, but are unique in what they add to that content. To me, there's a big difference between reading a blog post and reading a magazine feature. Both have good information; both have personal sculpting of data. But the magazine has layout — its own art form — there to carry that data through. It's like hearing a whole band play instead of just one guy sing at open mic night. Everybody involved in making the magazine creatively adds to that message. Now, I see your point about instant collaboration — everybody involved adds to that message, too — but the beauty of a magazine is that it makes its statement; you agree to read it before responding. The ability of the reader to shoot from the hip mid-article on the internet with their commentary has not always worked out for the best.
To clarify, the magazine itself is a publishing art form. I used to think it was easy because it came easy to me. Then I saw people do it wrong, and I tried to do things outside of my comfort zone, and I saw just how hard it was. It may not be appreciated as an art by every magazine reader, but if you can tell the difference between a clean, comfortable layout and a sloppy one that's hard to read, you can understand that there's some artistic creaitvity going into it. A website can have the same thing, but again, usually not in a one-shot. You don't see rich layout like text that conforms to curves, for instance.
Since you called out 1up but no specific examples, I went there and looked for non-list articles — real features. What I found mostly were paragraphs alternating with horizontal images (no text runaround, no type treatments) — the Life and Times of Nintendo, Why We Play Final Fantasy, Learning Through Play. I hate to call bullshit, but I do that on my blog regularly; if I spent more time in Photoshop, I would add rounded corners and gradient colors behind silloed images. The structure is very rigid, even if the pieces are prettier there than most. That's because online, a site's template/format/CMS dictates how the story looks; in print features, it's the opposite, and the story dictates the form. That's a huge, huge distinction for me and a major draw of magazines — design freedoms that lead to narrative surprises. (Minor props to the Fine Food of Beat-Em-Ups using a menu structure and looking not like a website but a diner menu — but that's riffing on and replicating an established design format, not creating your own from scratch.)
The “multimedia power of the internet” is not being flexed yet in a way that rivals what print can offer in the same space — not when you compare print editorial to online editorial anyway. When it comes down to words vs words, print presentation wins. (Video, online wins…but that's a different medium, really.) Check out http://katrinauch.com/feature1.html and look at some of those layouts (I particularly like the XIII and Star Wars layouts, but the scrapbooking ones are good examples too). If you can find me online articles that feature the same kind of variety of presentation, I want to see them, and I'm not being sarcastic. Online CAN do this. But it currently does not. Why not? I feel it's inevitable that online design will grow to accommodate this type of presentation…but I've been feeling that way for the last 10 years and I'm still seeing online prize quick-shot, database-driven CMS systems (ie databases) over deluxe visual layouts that entertain, illustrate, and maybe even inspire as well as inform.
The magazine is portable. This will one day go away, as technology advances and electronic viewing devices rival paper's flexibility, convenience, and worth as an artistic canvas. But just like every mag hater will tell you “at least it's good in the shitter,” every mag defender will say “you can't roll up and recycle a website.” (Yet.)
The magazine is contained. When I sit down with a magazine, I am comforted to know it will end. I have accomplished something small in reading a magazine; I go from cover to cover and read what interests me. But I have undertaken a small project and I get a sense of completion when it's over. The Internet…never ends. Hotlinking is awesome for reference but it's murder if you like to take in X amount of information and consider it before going back to learn more. I'd argue that the contained nature of a magazine lets you digest what you've taken in, whereas you're always grazing on the Internet.
One more point, and you said it yourself: The magazine is a very personal experience. There is value in being part of a larger group, but there is also value in feeling like this magazine, which came with your name on it and exists singularly in your hands and in your home, is for you. That personal experience is precious to me. Whereas online, I know it's going to be a group discussion and I might not even get to find out what I wanted to find out in the first place, because it is constantly changing and many factors influence it. It's the difference between a dinner party with friends and addressing a large crowd with a bullhorn.
The magazine, as DocLobster just said, is a comfortable, engaging content filter — something that online doesn't even want to be. The only filter you need is Google, but to use Google, you have to know what you are looking for. But a magazine can offer a surprise, can present you with information and stories that interest you but that you would not have found elsewhere. A small 150-word sidebar with a photo might tell you about a game, designer, genre, album, movie, book, event, phenomena or whatever in a far more compelling way than “hey check out this link” can. I have read more stories in Wired that made me say “I had no idea this existed, that's fascinating” than I can even count. And aside from a friend saying “I think this is something you will like,” you don't get that online very often. A magazine is a passive monthly sampler platter of things that could be awesome, and I do not know of an online equivalent that offers that with the same richness and comfort. An RSS reader simply doesn't feel like my friend.
I like what online can do, or rather what it could if it tried harder. I am not impressed with what it's doing now, or what it's done. I'm more hopeful for what it will do in the future. And when that future arrives, a future where “the magazine experience” can be adquately replicated (or bettered!) online, then I'll recycle my dead trees.
I like magazines.
For that matter real books. I won't say never, but I can't see myself curling up on the couch, fire crackling, warm fuzzy socks, nice cup of tea and a Kindle. I need paper.
I think I'll go plant a tree.
The funny thing is, we do exactly that. I have an old Kindle, Kat has a new Kindle. We snuggle up on the couch and have the same experience as we did with paper.
This is true. I have loved my Kindle for some time now. It's great being able to carry 50 some odd books in my purse. I have been an ereader for some time. I still have books, but I love rereading books, and it's much easier with a kindle. I also love that I can flip pages one-handed and never loose a bookmark.
I should have said in my original post that I agree that magazines currently offer a quality not commonly found on the internet, but I was meandering among points enough as is. I definitely think there is more funding, design, and pure effort being put into the good magazines today, but I that's more the issue with content-providers than any limitations of the internet. I believe any of the lovely magazine spreads you linked on katrinauch.com could easily be replicated online (and improved! see my previous thoughts on sound, animation). But we're still in a state where business is better and more devoted to the magazine format. I don't believe the magazine is a better medium for that kind of art, I think it's simply where the artists currently are, which disappoints me.
To reference something familiar to us both, I'd like to point to Blizzard's Cataclysm site http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/ as a good example of how websites can begin to trump magazines. This could have been a splash page for a table of contents in the WoW magazine. But there you would not see the fires burning from Deathwing or in the buildings below him. Or the embers floating off. You wouldn't have the slideshow in the lower right or the trailer playing above that. Or the quick links to all the info, media, and updates. I believe there is failing in no sound and in the layout of, for example, the Abyssal Maw feature: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/featur.... But again, I believe this is a fault in the scope and designers of the website, not a lacking in the web's power of content delivery. Magazines just have better people on them is all.
I can understand every pro you make thereafter, but I think your overall response makes it clear that this is very, very much a subjective discussion. We might as well argue our favorite colors. It appears you and I just have different tastes on where we get our stories and how comfortable either format is. You bring up the classic example of portability, which we agree is quickly going away thanks to smart phones, netbooks, and eReaders. You mention that a magazine is contained, but that's of course preference. You enjoy the undertaking of the “meal” of a magazine, while I prefer the “buffet” of the internet. You also note the personal experience of the magazine. I suppose I meant it more demeaningly while you mean it complimentarily. To me, it means solitary, remote, and difficult to reference. As to the “surprise” and discovery nature of a magazine, in-article linking and Wikipedia both daily make me say “I had no idea, that's fascinating”.
I think there is indeed a classic draw and respectable design currently going for many magazines. But I reiterate I believe it's nothing the web can't do better. We just need people to do it.
P.S. It's probably worth noting that I'm ready to be rid of all physical media, and this fact probably speaks more for my thoughts than my words. I don't buy music CD's anymore because I inevitably rip them and toss the CD's into a box in the closet. I only buy PC games online (if I can) because I don't want more matter in my house (let alone the CD switching..). And I don't like getting magazines that then pile up on a bookshelf.
Also, thank you for your lengthy and poignant discourse, it's helped me understand the minds of magazine-lovers better. As you may have noticed, I'm a co-host on the Outlandish Podcast, a World of Warcraft podcast. We do a community question every week (much like Talk Radar's) and I'm going to ask our listeners what they think of the WoW mag for next week's question.
This would be another quality archival volume for WOW enthusiasts. Another good thing with this is I can get access to some more of their cool artwork.
Pingback: PAX East: Day 1 — One Of Swords