Digital Adventures

Digital Adventures

   The magazine of the Natural Resources Defense Council, OnEarth, was the most recent magazine to announce its change from print to digital-only production.  "Reinvention has long been a part of this magazine's DNA," said editor Douglas S. Barasch.  "I've enjoyed working in the print medium, but I am genuinely thrilled and inspired by this next step in OnEarth's evolution.  Every month, we promise to take you on a truly unique, captivating, and immersive journey, offering a perspective, as always, that you simply won't find anywhere else."  Hmm, sounds awfully similar to the words used to launch a new magazine.

   But for those of you still subscribing to magazines or reading hardcover books (that's me), the writing does seem to be on the wall as digital sales continue to climb.  Publishing costs are simply getting too expensive.  A typical magazine with a million+ subscribers will destroy hundreds of thousands of misprints, free copies or unsold newsstand copies.  Postage costs keep rising.  Packaging costs keep rising.  Printing costs keep rising.  So how can a magazine such as ELLE (a monster just in weight) sell a subscription for $5, or Esquire sell one for $2?

   The answer is advertisers, which has become the bane of digital publishers.  How do you keep readers from simply skipping the ads and clicking right to the digital content (vs. flipping through the ads looking for a coupon or tearing out a scratch sample of a new perfume)?  Yet magazines have to promise their advertisers that they have a set number of readers, which is usually done by showing the advertisers their subscription numbers.  Once those numbers drop, so do the rates that their advertisers will pay.  So from an advertisers' viewpoint, do you still pay the same fee to the digital edition (a four-color, full page ad in a print edition can easily top $100,000 in a popular magazine).  Some magazines such as Time are fighting this, allowing only print subscribers full access to their digital content.  Newsweek stopped print editions several years ago and has had an extremely difficult transition as other magazines such as The Week stepped in to fill the void in the weekly print world (when was the last time you accessed a digital view of Newsweek?).  A digital editon subscription to Newsweek costs $34.99 (they've since returned to print).  Some magazines will make the print edition inexpensive but charge for access to the digital version;  some give you both for the cost of the print subscription.

   The generational gap is proving wide when it comes to digital vs. hard copy.  Taking an e-reader on a plane or vacation is almost the norm with someone reading a book standing out (much as someone still listening to a CD player).  And while library shelves are still stacked with books and magazines, it is becoming easier and easier to check out digital editions of both books and movies.  So why is it that what is so common for the younger group growing up in an almost totally digital world is a bit more difficult for an older generation which seems to accept certain parts and not others (my wife and I still read checked-out hardcover books from the library).  Is it the familiar, a resistance to change, a failure to "reinvent," as the editor said?

   The change IS happening, albeit slower than many publishers would care to see as a notebook or smartphone seems to encourage "quick" reading, perhaps not the entire article but a skimmed version (forget the ads unless they appear as annoying popups in the corners).  But for the publisher, a digital edition allows greater editing and updating power;  graphs and photos can be played with and moved easily, news can change daily or hourly instead of waiting for the next month's edition, planning each issue is eased as far as time deadlines are concerned, postage is gone, spoiled ink runs are gone, delivery trucks and freight are gone, employees who can't adjust are gone.

   And older users are gravitating to the field (Facebook's largest user group is 55+, something Facbook is trying desperately to change)...and of course, blogs arrive.  It took me forever (in a sense) to jump away from print and head into a blog.  From my viewpoint, a blog was simply a diary, a Facebook-like collection of one's vacation or selfies with someone few others knew (but should know, as least from the bloggers' perspective).  And for frustrated writers, confessors and readers, blogs were an easy way to just "put it out there."  Quick, easy to edit, easy to publish and despite being filled with opinions and viewpoints, there's no fact checking (and although I've said this before, while I do try to present accurate information and provide further reading, this IS a blog and should be read as such...top magazines are libel for misrepresentation and inaccuracy in their stories and thus have to maintain fact checkers and legal representation).

    So the end of this story is, help me here.  I write much of this as viewed from what I would want to read about and as before, am simply trying to present a variety of what I think are interesting topics.  I continue to feel that stimulation and conversation are vital to our world, perhaps even more so today as we (all generations, here) continue to seemingly isolate ourselves with ear buds and sunglasses and streaming video.  Get angry, get opinionated, get talking!  If you're gorgeously happy, say it, show it, tell others. 

   One final note.  Often in digital print, I am overwhelmed with link after link sending me into possible hours of reading...so I click on few, if any, unless I am totally interested.  The links I provide in my pieces are generally to show where I got the quote and story, should you want to read further;  and yet, sometimes I am asked where are my sources, where am I getting the quotes from (a Catch-22).  How about it?  Fewer links, more links, about right? 

   There's an old saying in writing...you can't chase your readers.  Today's publishers seem almost desperate and rightly so in a crowded world of publishing.  The choices are rapidly becoming too many, too many sites want our eyes, too many sites "think" that their material is vital, is important, and often, is worth paying for.  But the bottom line is, a reader can only be influenced so much.  A good story is a good story...but it is the reader that will decide that.  So, to those of you still reading this...thank you.  I value your time and appreciate that you consider this worth that time.



can't chase readers