Ad pages in magazines dropped 11.7% in 2008

Of the more than 230 magazines tracked by the Publishers Information Bureau, only 42 -- or about 18% -- saw ad pages increase for the year, according to figures released by the Publishers Information Bureau via Folio's Jason Fell.

Of the more than 230 magazines tracked by PIB, only 42—or about 18 percent—saw ad pages increase for the year. In other words, it was the biggest dropoff since 2000, the earliest year comparative PIB numbers are available.

Each of the top 12 advertising categories declined in 2008. Hardest hit? Automotive, with titles such as Hot Rod and Automobile, which saw ad pages fall 24.3 percent and revenues decline 20.5 percent to $1.67 billion.

Next up were business magazines. SmartMoney, owned jointly by Hearst and Dow Jones, saw the most severe decline, with ad pages falling 29.7 percent for the year. Mansueto Ventures’ Fast Company was the lone holdout, which posted a 23.9 percent gain in pages. (It should be noted that FastCompany effectively shuttered their online unit and pushed its resources exclusively toward the printed product. -Ed.)

Newsweeklies were next. U.S. News & World Report, which will become a monthly, saw ad pages plummet 32.4 percent for the year. The Week was one of two magazines that posted flat ad page results for the year.

Finally, music magazines. Fell writes that Blender is on "life support" and saw ad pages fall 30.6 percent for 2008. Rolling Stone, which shrunk its signature-sized magazine this year, wasn't far behind, with ad pages declining 23.8 percent.

See if you can pick your favorite title out of this table:


So, who wants to be a magazine editor? Anyone? Anyone?

UPDATE: A great related article by Salon's Rebecca Traister. Here's a good bit from it:

Despite decades of premature bell-tolling about the death of print, turn-of-the-21st-century magazines were, in many ways, plump geese, fattened on big advertising budgets, a seemingly limitless market and an expanding class of consumers eager to spend money on expensive things (whether they could afford them or not). Americans wanted to eat well, dress fine and live lavishly, and that was good for food and shelter and fashion magazines. Americans wanted to wallow in celebrity gossip, and a passel of glossy weeklies was born, delivering Hollywood gossip in photo-larded installments. The pesky divide between editorial and advertising melted with the development of magalogs, publications like Lucky and Domino devoted entirely to introducing readers to stuff they might want to buy.

Good stuff.

When Newspaper Website Advertisements Go Terribly, Terribly Wrong

For a moment, I thought I had gone to the wrong news website. You know -- a prank. A placeholder. A misplaced letter, sending me to an alternate website that was coated with tiled advertisements:


But alas, with a more careful eye, my brain soon dissected what was before me -- the front page of philly.com, the portal for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.

If I look closer, I can find the news content hidden in between the garish blue ads down each side of the page, on top of the featured story (which rolled-out on first load) and about 20 percent of what's left of the "above-the-fold" space, even on 1280 by 800 resolution.

If I can simply put this visual in terms of the epic battle between editorial and business, it becomes clear to me that business, indeed, won.

For a site that I guarantee has more eyeballs than both printed publications combined, I believe that this is not how we should monetize newspapers on the Internet. (And if you're wondering, yes, the ads permeated the front page of each publication, too.)

Newspapers Undercut Their Own Profits, RIAA-Style

This morning, there's no one I disagree with more than David Lazarus. In a recent column for the San Francisco Chronicle, Lazarus states that newspapers are "giving away the store" and needs to "start charging for - or at the very least controlling - the use of our products online." He cites a growing fiscal discrepancy as the reason for such action, and indicates that the New York Times TimesSelect method isn't quite up to par.

David, the newspaper industry (and journalism as a whole) can not - and must not - become the RIAA.

If newspapers begin to charge for all of their news, the "common good" of news will be lost and will no longer function to serve the masses. That is the point of the news, isn't it?

But show me the money! you say. Alright - let's talk business.

In my very first journalism class, I was told that the price of a newspaper was so low because it functions as a relative value indicator - you have to pay for it, so it's got worth, but not much, because you're almost entitled to it (hip hip for common knowledge!). The New York Times costs more than, say, the New York Post because it's presumed that there is more valuable, expensive content inside. And generally, that is a true statement.

So the consumer's price for a newspaper is not intended to charge them - really, it functions only to arrange the value of newspapers relative to themselves. It is not set up to provide a barrier for consumers.

Newspapers, therefore, have always given away the store. So why change now? Because newspapers don't understand the online business model (which, hint hint, doesn't have the same rules as the paper game).

This sounds like the typical protective musings of someone on the editorial side. And in this rare instance, I must disagree.

If newspapers begin charging for their articles - even those most basic news articles - no one will read them. Why should I pay for it when I can just go to a newsstand, read it quickly, and walk off without paying? In an era where newspapers can't seem to cover anything but the top stories, a reader won't care if it's original reporting or not. It essentially says the same thing. Who cares who spoke to who to get the story? (Here's a hint: only another journalist)

What's worse, if newspapers begin controlling their content - get yourself ready for some 1984-style, DRM-infused "content" (my, what a buzzword in journalism!) - expect readers to abandon ship en masse to another paper, or worse, a blog. If the Chronicle or its parent company Hearst begins to charge for its content, don't expect the newspaper to tread water for much longer.

Is that what you want to happen, Lazarus? The general public will soon get their news from unsourced blogs and AP wire snippets? Or worse, Wikimedia will begin WikiNews! How's that for original content? Talk about education for the masses!

Journalists and academics everywhere should be smacking their foreheads in disgust at this proposal.

So what's the solution? Ads. Charge more for ads. You newspaper people jumped into the online game and thought you couldn't get any money for advertisements online. Well, you were surprised, because you did - although it seems that you're not getting enough money for them.

Why is that?

Because newspapers are undercutting their own profits by refusing to cease printing paper copies. Paper nostalgia aside, think of the business dynamic - why should an advertiser pay the same $60,000 for one-third of a page in USA Today as it could for online? The advertiser knows it reaches more readers with paper copies. What's the incentive, unless it's a tech- or youth-oriented advertiser?

By continuing to produce a version of its "content" that competes with its newer, digital incarnation, newspapers are undercutting their own profits. The reality is newspapers are offering too many options from their portfolio. And that, my friends, is why online advertising hasn't become the savior that everyone wants it to be.

But nay, you say! Won't the advertisers just leave altogether?

Well, if the majority of newspapers switched over to digital content, they won't really have a choice, will they? Advertisers have money to offer. Newspapers have distribution and consumer reach to offer. From a business standpoint, closing the digital-print rift mends the split nature of advertising funds. These businesses are set up to need each other. But right now, there's an imbalance, and newspapers need advertisers more than vice-versa.

So David? No, I don't think newspapers should control their content - or charge more for it - any more than they already do.

Because at the end of the day, you can't publish a paper that no one reads.