Columbia Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review editor Elizabeth Spayd, citing a decline in print readership, announced in a post Wednesday morning that the magazine would drop down from six issues per year to two "special issues" per year. The magazine will instead invest more resources in its digital operations. "Continuing to spend so many resources on print is, regrettably,…
The new mobile apps from the New York Times have so far failed to make much of an impact, and the paper's existing paywall is peaking in terms of its reach. So what does the company do now in order to find new readers and revenue?
The world might be festooned with ads, but magazine covers had remained largely ad-free until this week, when a tiny Verizon Wireless ad appeared on the cover of Time magazine. The same ad is scheduled to land on the cover of Sports Illustrated on Wednesday.
Advertisers can safely be considered supportive of the idea, but the rest of the media business is still grappling with the idea. Here are reactions from five media figures:
Not surprisingly, there has been a lot written about Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's blockbuster purchase of the venerable Washington Post for $250 million (including my take on the deal and Om's analysis). The media world hasn't seen a bombshell of equivalent proportions since AOL acquired Time Warner - although hopefully this acquisition turns out a bit better than that one.
In media, there are big fish and little fish. Which is why the appointment of Cyndi Stivers as editor-in-chief of AOL.com didn't create a lot of noise about what would happen to the publication she was leaving, the Columbia Journalism Review, of which she'd served as editor-in-chief for less than two years.
The magazine is an acknowledged authority on the journalism business. Its specialization notwithstanding, it's among the most important reads in the industry. And it's having a rough time right now.
If a magazine still is what it's been for almost three centuries—an ink-on-paper "storehouse" of writing, published on a regular schedule—then the "media industrial revolution" (to use Tina Brown's awkward phrase) is surely in the process of rendering many of our magazines obsolete. Seen historically, The Art of Making Magazines—a collection of twelve lectures by esteemed editors, proofreaders, designers, and writers delivered over the last decade to graduate students at the Columbia School of Journalism—may have barely made its deadline. (Future versions might be titled something like The Lost Art of…)
The assumptions driving the architecture and feature sets of Web sites are often wrong. Years ago, we spent years building big, complicated Web sites when our users really wanted a good search engine on top of a PDF repository. We’ve spent hundreds of hours building interactive Web sites, when all our users want to do is find and read information, which this brilliant piece from the Onion captures perfectly. Perfectly, I reiterate. Post it everywhere.
Perhaps users also don’t really respond to complicated, editorially curated home pages.
We thought we'd end the year with a selection of some of the deep media stories we had the most fun reading this year (and a couple we had a lot of fun writing, at the end). These are not in any particular order, and we expect we are forgetting a few standouts. Herewith, Capital's 2012 Media Longreads:
Sarah Ellison went deep inside the internal investigation probing News Corp's corruption scandal: The investigation that has been most immediately terrifying to those inside the Murdoch empire is the one mounted by Murdoch himself. The culture inside News Corp.
Over one hundred and twenty guests attended the Custom Content Council’s Broadway Debut at the Liberty Theatre in New York City last night for the tenth annual Pearl Awards ceremony. Custom content creators and agencies from 15 different countries representing brands such as Disney, Ford, Four Seasons, Whole Foods Market and Lexus submitted 628 total entries this year.
Dear John, You and I have never met, but we have corresponded—a bit testily at times (more on that later). In light of last week’s news, I wanted to follow up with another round of correspondence, and this time I’m doing it publicly, via the Columbia Journalism Review. I hope you’ll respond, because I know you are a believer in transparency. If you do, the CJR editors promise they’ll run your remarks.
First, I want to make clear that I admire what you’ve tried to do, first at Journal Register Co. and now at the combined Digital First Media