Print's Charming

Folio has a good editorial this month:

Why does it seem so hard for some publishers to understand the concept of magazine media as a brand-based business? Where print is a strong component, but only one of several.

At the Western Publications Association Conference last month, I sat in on the half-day Executive Management Workshop (which FOLIO: sponsored). One of the attendees challenged a speaker, saying that the additional work of an e-mail newsletter, or a Web site, means in effect, that you’re the publisher of not one but two magazines, or three—with all the production, marketing and staffing implications.

The next day, I was involved in a discussion with my luncheon tablemates about selling e-media. What struck me is that there is still a view that separate sales staffs ought to exist for print and e-media sales.

Later that evening, at the Maggie Awards reception, a publisher was describing his very successful e-media initiatives, but said at a prior company, the rep firm he was using complained that the publisher was “giving him too much stuff to sell.” To which the publisher artfully replied, “But you haven’t even made budget.”

People, this is really straightforward: Your readers are seeking and receiving information in many channels. You marginalize yourself if you think your business is print publishing.
...
In "The Right Way To Do Brand Extensions", publishing analyst Dan Aks argues for a rigorous model for developing brand extensions. He says, in part: “The goal is a shift from a magazine orientation into a ubiquitous, targeted, reader and advertiser-centric media enterprise. Why? First you have to accept there’s a problem. In the case of magazine publishers, the problem is we’re in a declining business.”

Those are pretty strong words. So why is it that in a survey of b-to-b publishing executives, 42 percent of our respondents receive no revenue from online media and 53 percent receive no revenue from events? Why is this so hard?