Posted 6:35 AM by steve

Writer Daniel Gross attributing the failure of Portfolio, one of Conde Nast's magazines to editorial fumbles and errors... when in fact the cause of death was more likely lackluster ad page sales.... which have very little to do with whether editors spend too much at lunch or abuse company car privileges.

One of the big reasons Gross cites for its failure is not giving enough attention to its web site. But buyers of print advertising don't really care if the publication has a web site... in fact, although it may run against conventional wisdom, they dislike magazine web sites as they allow readers to view the editorial content without exposing themselves to the expensive print advertising. And, again counter to conventional wisdom among web aficionados, web site visitors do not lead to increased number of print subscribers. Even with print advertising revenues dropping, that money pays the lion's share of the expenses needed to put out the editorial product and it has to bug print advertisers that their money is subsidizing the very sites that diminish the need and desire readers have to buy a print copy of the newspaper or magazine (talk about supplying the rope with which they hang themselves!). And while they are climbing, web-generated ad sales don't come close (nor will they ever) to producing enough revenue to support a full editorial operation.

Gross is likewise wrong in arguing that the magazine should have used content from other Conde Nast publications. Why should an advertiser lay out thousands of dollars to advertise in a magazine if he knows that a reader's need for that publication is diminished to the extent that readers can get that content elsewhere? To illustrate, I subscribe to the WSJ in large part for their editorial pages... which, by showing up not only on the web but are excerpted elsewhere makes me feel somewhat dumb for paying money to read what I can read for free somewhere else. The reason to have unique content (or, for that matter, to have 'name' writers providing material) is to draw the readers that in turn draw the advertisers.

Writers such as Gross (and not surprising, even though he is supposedly a business writer) still don't get (or accept) that the real customer in publishing is not the reader but the advertiser and readers are but the lure with which to draw advertisers. Advertisers don't care about the editorial content of a publication except to the extent that it attracts readers (and in particular, readers of the demographic the advertiser is interested in). A big name writer is useless (or worse, given the costs) except to the extent readers flock to the magazine because of that writer. Having a web site may increase the total number of 'eyeballs' looking at the content but it does not make readers want to buy the print edition (disclosure: I haven't bought a copy of National Review since they started their web site). If publishers want to keep ad dollars flowing in, they have to give advertisers something for the money... and that is readers of the print product... and publishers don't get that by giving away the editorial content away on a web site and they don't get that by reprinting editorial material that readers can - and will - find elsewhere. It's Publishing 101.

Note: I've periodically edited the above, nothing of substance, just clean ups and elaborations.