The Future of Blog Networks
David Carr, writing in the New York Times, spots more evidence that physical magazines are going through a bad patch and are eager to get online. The problem they have is drafting in the expertise and adapting current staff to new realities.
“On Tuesday, Time Inc. announced that it was putting 18 of its 50 magazines in the United States up for sale. Given the somewhat marginal publications involved — niche magazines like Popular Science, Yachting, Transworld Skateboarding — it is not as if the company is burning heirloom furniture to stay warm.”
Another interesting point is that mass market magazines are the ones mostly in trouble. Upmarket titles have it much easier :
“Time Inc.’s scale makes it vulnerable because the masses can access commoditized information for free while magazines that are more targeted at affluent readers, like Condé Nast magazines, are less troubled.”
But it’s not going to be a problem-free transition for even the biggest mainstream stars :
“In a phone interview, she [Ann S. Moore, the chief executive of Time Inc.] was wildly enthusiastic about the company’s growing digital prospects, but did not minimize the size of the task ahead.”
So we see two converging trends here. Print publications rushing for the perceived lower-cost shelter of an online presence, and online blog networks and others scaling up already Web-based products to stay competitive with the incoming competition.
Who will win this Goliath and David contest? Actually, I’ve never thought of this as a head to head, which presupposes some kind of limitation and a fight for space and readers. Both are almost unlimited online.
If we run out of western middle-class readers, just look at India, where a vast, educated and English-speaking middle class is growing at an enormous rate. They look to the West for their ideas, styles and consumption expectations, all within the purview of traditional magazine content. A typical printco would find it hard going to establish an operation in India. Online magazines are already world publications accessible anywhere. This is one of the many factors driving publishers to the Web.
The convergence is so complementary that mergers and especially acquisitions are inevitable, almost all of it financed from the print market. The task of the blog networks is to make themselves attractive to the incomers, both in terms of innovation, quality, brand, and existing readership. If the printcos have the money and the publishing skills, they are looking for sure-footed online operators who can meet them halfway on their own strengths and burnish their publishing portfolios.
Jeff Jarvis gets it in one: “Magazines could have had a unique benefit in the internet if they had thought of themselves not as slick paper but instead of networks of interest and information. … Sadly, not many in the business view it this way. They’re still thinking content and control. They’re still thinking centralized. Break out and think distributed and think community and new things become possible.”
Beneath that heady cattle market of big combines and smaller but sizzling internet fry, there will be a secondary layer of mid-sized businesses, acting more like print publications than blogs, for which we use the catch-all title of Web Network Magazines.
This is the area where most blog networks should be positioning themselves. It will be lucrative in itself, but will also catch some of the stardust falling from the conglomerates above. And who knows whose eyeballs may be watching.
“networks of interest and information” sounds interesting (as a saying). I think I will mull that over a while.
By HART (1-800-HART) on September 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Yep, the distributed model with interesting and informative content. That’s exactly what we’re trying to do here, HART.
By John Evans on September 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Where is Matt Craven’s comment? I like your heavy-handed moderation tactics, John… Anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
By Aaron Brazell on September 19th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
To some extent, we’re indulging in semantics. The plain fact is the same as it has always been: good content, well written and marketed, will win every time.
By Clive Allen on September 19th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Internet is fast freeing itself from the boundaries, culture, ethics and all that crap. More and more people are logging up to share their common interest and goals.
Traditional media is certainly going through a bad patch, and it doesn`t need any more evidence. Online properties like craigslist have single handely threatened the entire classified sections of newspapers.
Blog Networks biggest failure so far is to try to copy the print world. No doubt the entry level is very low; few dollars are needed to start any blog or blog network. But this has resulted in a mushroom growth of blog networks, and now many are trying to do desperate measures to even float. We have already seen many networks like FineFools shut down.
The only solution I see, is to let blog networks evolve into social networks. I have shared my thoughts on this post at InstaMedia.
By Ankit on September 19th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Did I just miss it or did you *not* mention “web network magazine” once in this post?! There was at least two obvious places, right?
Seriously, when traditional print media companies go online it usually turns out pretty bland. Their writers aren’t used to the web and the ones making the calls haven’t got the know-how needed to establish a strong web presence with quality. There are exceptions of course, but as a rule I don’t think web operations (blog networks or stand alone sites for that matter) should feel all that threatened when a magazine in their niche goes online to make a buck.
Still, if a print company sticks to it, or has its plans laid out right from the start (from a consultant no doubt) they have a strong advantage in their print brand, which people tend to value a lot more than the opposite web brand, as well as a dedicated (buying) readerbase to direct to their website.
That’s why web companies need to stay on their toes and not lean back. “Hey, we’ve got blogs and we know Wordpress and can install some themes and plugins, who cares – we’re cutting edge man!” – it don’t cut it. Evolve, dammit!
So yeah, come to think of it I’m really surprised you didn’t bring up your web network magazine!
Nice post.
By TDH on September 19th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Thanks, Thord. Actually “web network magazine” is mentioned in the last but one paragraph, but I’m trying to broaden out the argument now without getting up too many people’s noses
I’ll continue this reply in today’s post, as it’s a bit long.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 8:25 am
And you couldn’t ever be accused of being “heavy-handed”, eh, Aaron?
Matt’s point was dealt with in an email. His comment was caught in our anti-spam system, as was yours. It didn’t add to the argument.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 9:45 am
It’s not semantics, Clive, it’s about creating a native alternative to struggling print mags. Blog networks don’t even begin to hack it. A magazine is a very different beast to a blog network.
It’s a nuanced argument that requires some knowledge of the print market though, and is going over the heads of many bloggers who think they have discovered the Elysian fields online in Web 2.0.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 9:49 am
>>
Ankit, I think it’s more complicated than that. Nowhere has a blog network matched the quality of a New Yorker, Economist or BusinessWeek.
The problem is that no blog network has produced content to rival them — though that exists in single personality blogs, like Cringley’s, for example — but that’s still tech-based.
If we could add high-class content to the distribution advantage and low cost of online production, we would have a native magazine industry on the web. We don’t have that now, and blog networks come nowhere near it.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 9:57 am
And why do “we” lack the quality content? It’s all in the business model because if you could make more money you could pay writers more. In Sweden that’s been happening every now and then, Editor in Chief’s for respected business magazines gets recruited to websites to give them credibility and content. Granted, it’s not a movement yet, but I’m sure it will be more common.
By TDH on September 20th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Yep, there are many factors involved, Thord, and it’s easy to oversimplify. A lot of crossover is going on with great benefit to online publications. And there are a lot of good writers online who don’t write for print.
But I think the broad points are true, and I’m trying to set them out here in reponse to much uninformed criticism of our “web network magazine” approach.
People like what they’re used to, which is why innovation takes time. It shouldn’t online, though.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 10:12 am
You need to package the online presence in a way that feels natural to the broader public, sure. But what it all comes down to is content – if it isn’t good enough then your marverlous site won’t become successful.
It comes down to a solid business model, a user friendly layout with obvious and smart features without as little in terms of registration as possible, and high quality content. Get the best writers and you’re half-way there. Start in the other end and end up with almost decent writers and you’ll have a very steep uphill road ahead of you.
By TDH on September 20th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Content is King, I agree. But great magazines also pay attention to the vehicle, making sure it’s navigable and attractive.
Online magazines have also to assimilate the new technologies, RSS etc. So we have to think carefully about this. Engadget just went for broke, and it’s just too darn techie for the main audience, which is masked in their case because it is a gadget-loving readership.
We need to think beyond that.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Oh yes, accessability isn’t always about the seeing or hearing impaired – and a site that is to make it really big sure needs to be accessable to the broader audience.
I think your observations regarding techie and gadget blogs are correct. They sure have an advantage since their readers are extremely far ahead compared to the vast majority in terms of technical penetration.
By TDH on September 20th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Thord, you make an interesting case about the business model not being able to pay top-flight journalists. That’s true, but what do small football teams do when they start off? They hire older, semi-retired, former stars to act as examples to younger players and add a touch of class to the mix.
That’s what online publications without the clout to hire the best writers should do. Either that, or give a big name or two a chunk of equity in the business.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I’m not sure that’s a valid argument John. Can you find older, semi-retired star journos to be an inspiration? I doubt it (although it could happen of course), unless you get them involved as owners or something like that – but I’d say that’s easier to do with a younger journo (more energy). Also, you could probably find an older journo willing to jump on the train, but honestly – is he all that cheaper? When I’ve led development of magazines that’s not the opinion I’ve got but again, it could be the case of course.
I still think you just should hire the good journos and get going, because it wouldn’t cost all that much more. The problem is that most blogs aren’t moneytizing good enough so they can’t even pay themselves good enough.
Just spin more moeny and the journos will come. It’s just a matter of writing numbers on a check, nothing more and nothing less.
By TDH on September 20th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
And I stand by my point (which has been made over and over again in this discussion) – without good content, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself. And there are good writers with good content in the blogosphere – the trick is to find them. Looking at what the journalists put online, I’d say that the competition isn’t too great. Yes, the occasional journalist can write but the majority are just hacks regurgitating press releases. Put the right bloggers together with our lead in understanding the technology and requirements of the medium and I’d say we have the print journals beaten. It’s just that small problem of quality content…
By Clive Allen on September 20th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Actually, we’ve attracted some pro writers without departing from our business model of high revenue share, plus a stake in the sale price should the network be sold.
There have been disappointments but generally we are happy with the quality of our authors across the board.
I have also tried to poach (or intercept) some high-flying blog stars. This may emerge soon — or it may not.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
But if you package it as a blog network you won’t attract the readership from beyond the very limited echo-chamber of the blogosphere, Clive. You won’t make money either.
Engadget, on which the sale of Weblogs Inc to AOL was based, is a gadget blog with a tech audience, but it reached out way beyond the blogosphere. It’s a much copied one off.
By John Evans on September 20th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
John Evans: But if you package it as a blog network you won’t attract the readership from beyond the very limited echo-chamber of the blogosphere, Clive. You won’t make money either.
We are running Instablogs Network for over an year, and we for the one were able to attract a decent readership outside the eco-chamber of the blogosphere and were able to make a liitle bit of money too. Though I agree, the current model most blog networks are employing is getting older now.
Blog networks need to evolve and soon. The readership of blogs is growing like fire, and more and more people from all around the world are hopping on the bandwagon like never before.
In my opinion calling blog networks as magazine is not going to do anything. Blog is no longer a techie word. People understands fully what blog means and how they are different from magazines and other traditional stuff.
And its not surprising main strean newspapers like NYTimes have changed their online format to blend more into blogoshere. BBC launched its blog network few months ago.
Its a time to move forward with blog networks, and helping it grow into a social media platforms, which could enable more participation by the people.
By Ankit on September 21st, 2006 at 9:58 am
Ankit, I think you’ve done very well at Instablogs and I admire your operation. It’s good to hear new voices from around the world. But, if you eliminate the MySpace crowd, the blogosphere is still a tiny fraction of a much wider market out there.
If you make the decision to be a commercial network, you have to shake off the halter and restraints of the blogosphere. See my piece today: “What on Earth is the Blogosphere?”
By John Evans on September 21st, 2006 at 3:38 pm