I’ve landed a beta invite to publish a magazine on MagCloud and my initial look at everything shows a maximum of 60 pages for an issue at a cost of $12 per issue. Shipping looks to be $1.40 per copy. I also saw Stanford Magazine at $9.60 for 48 pages so it appears that the raw cost will be $0.20/page.

It could cost a penny a page and it wouldn’t matter if the printing sucks so the next step is to get one printed with high quality photography/scans and see how it looks. I’ll let you know what I find out.

The great potential for this technology is that all things that are web based can now offer a hard copy of their content to consumers at virtually no cost (except all the time to design it).

Recommended Posts

26 Comments

  1. I’ve seen some pretty nice output from HP Indigos, and some horrible output also. I’ve never seen what I personally consider truly outstanding results, but some have been more than acceptable considering the other benefits of the technology. One problem I’ve encountered has been a lack of consistency compared with traditional offset — in my (somewhat limited) experience, it seems like there are more pages with problems from Indigo than offset. However, that could just be a problem with the printshops I’ve used.

    I’ve never seen anything from the people connected with MagCloud, so none of this is intended to reflect on them. I’ll be very curious to hear your impressions.

  2. I’m still waiting for my invite. :( I’m very curious how the print turns out. Good luck!

  3. what will the magazine cover? politics, art, surfing photography????

  4. ahh i read your previous post, so i know your ‘topic’

    question why print? why not go purely www/pdf?

  5. Hi, great idea!
    i’m photographer and interessted in the mag.

    let me know if there are news!
    and if you need some page :) i can participate with a editorial ;)

    best regards and waiting for news,
    stay tuned!

    cheers,
    lukasz

  6. The MagCloud samples I’ve seen have looked great—still identifiable as digital output but very nice digital output. Colour was true and rich.

    I’m working on some further test projects right now. I do think that they need to get the cost-per-page down though. $0.20 is just not viable in terms of producing a magazine to compete with off-the-shelf mags.

  7. I spotted MagCloud yesterday, and have already put in for my Beta invite. Waiting for approval. This has come at the right time for me. Looking forward to what you do with the format. I’m launching an online mag, but wanted a way to release hard copy limited edition mags twice a year. MagCloud came up with the goods.

  8. Waiting for my approval, too…in the meantime, keep this overall idea in mind:

    An HP print has one significant advantage over offset when it comes to image reproduction: a printed continuous tone image. Remember, offset is a CMYK/plate process which will always lose a little vibrancy compared to the native image/file because of the “dot.”

    So, I’d think that if HP gets their shit together with these printed magazines, the potential for their image quality trouncing an offset-printed book could be great. Not to mention more accurate color-correcting for the novice publisher…

  9. This is really confusing – why do you all want this? More paper more waste? Why not web? Ultimately shareable, back lit, simple. “It could cost a penny a page and it wouldn’t matter if the printing sucks.” I look forward to everyone’s debut issue (not)

  10. I just heard about a new service, it’s called “Slate On Demand”. You too can have a one-off slate version of your brilliant work, carved by hand. The rendering of my drawings of family week with our neighbours, the Mammoths, should turn out nice and cheap looking – it’s only a doubloon a slab!

  11. @9: Ah, the ol’ “print vs. web” argument again…

    Julie, I’ll be as succinct as possible in answering your “Why not web?” question:

    Web is perfect for immediate, timely, disposable info (this is why newspapers are suffering). Print magazines are still in demand for their tactile, read-on-demand, portable, collectible and archival properties (this is why National Geographic isn’t suffering).

    And as popular as blogs are, research consistently shows that people still don’t like to read their computer screens when comparing print to online magazines. That’s why the successful online versions of magazines look completely different than their print brethren.

    Does that answer your question?

  12. Hi Stoner, Who said anything about blogs?
    And I’m not really trying to compare I’m just trying to understand why publishers are not embracing the web. Yes it would be no fun to try and look at Vanity Fair or the New Yorker on the bus (as of now at least) but that’s also where I can’t listen to a track while I read an interview, for example. We are not Conde Nast et al who won’t embrace the web and who keep their advertisers away from it too. Don’t you think print is behaving like the recording industry 10 years ago?
    Here’s how mags online ought to be done perhaps… http://zoozoom.com

  13. @12: Julie, you’re right – most print magazines are not embracing the web the way they should and they should definitely take a cue from the recording industry. Hell, I’m having a hard time doing that very thing and I need to change that way of thinking, pronto!

    But it seems like even zoozoom.com isn’t going to last as an online magazine – the images are great, but the navigation is janky and it doesn’t seem like the site works the way consumers best use websites.

    I think a better example is what SPIN magazine is doing: http://spin.com/

    They’re embracing how viewers seem to best use the web to consume information and they’re making the current issue and past issues available in that format. Plus, they’re taking advantage of advertising in ways that advertisers are finding acceptable.

    I really believe that this is how an existing print magazine will make the best use of the web: learn from the best sites and be flexible enough to change when necessary.

  14. Oops – we’ve done what I hate: hijacked the post and spun off in another direction! Sorry, Rob.

    Back to the topic: has anyone been “approved” to take next steps with MagCloud?

    Rob – any news on your end?

  15. Stoner (don’t I know you?) just lastly – zoozoom’s been publishing for 8 years and has won 2 Webbys and several other awards. Spin is a great magazine but online I don’t see any BIG PHOTOS and it looks like some blog not a magazine. Come on guys we want to take advantage of what the web does offer, not mince around with pokey little thumbnails and a total lack of multimedia (why no music in the Spin stories??), it’s such a waste.
    Thanks for chatting sorry to go off on a tangent but you know what they say, if you don’t you’re only going round in circles!

  16. PS New York Times T Magazine…

  17. Julie,

    “We are not Conde Nast et al who won’t embrace the web and who keep their advertisers away from it too. ”

    I guess you’re in a different universe than me; but Conde Nast in my universe has has a www site for years. As for keeping their advertisers off that is a very silly statement; a company like Mercedes is very big and is on the www and advertises on www sites and actually is not controlled on Conde Nast.

    As for quality of image reproduction; print is better. Until someone sets standards for monitors you have no idea what you image looks like on your readers machine. Gee, www people can’t even get their act together on CSS.

    Stoner, CMYK maybe dirty but with a good pressman and QC person the offset quality can be very very good; than threw in a 5th or 6th color. I’ve not looked at the HP results but trouncing web – I doubt it especially for runs over 100; and for run of 800k and more we have a long way to go. BTW, stoner there is also gravure which can print very beautiful but is very expensive.

    Will print go away? Probably in 15 years; when the MAC Air looks heavy. But will there still be print? yep just like there is still B&W and color film photography.

  18. @17: I should’ve been more clear, Michael – I’m just talking about these REALLY small print runs (under 3K or so) when thinking about MagCloud. I don’t think any newsstand title would even consider this site for seriously printing a magazine for obvious reasons.

    You’re right about the art of offset printing for all those reasons. And I’ve been on press to see Playboy being printed on a gravure. It’s a sight to behold, really.

    And I appreciate your opinion on the future of print, even if I don’t agree – I wish I could see into the future on that…

  19. I just received my first copy of a magazine printed by MagCloud.com and I have to say the quality is great for this type of printing. Plus, with the money that you could save on not having to do a full run with a regular printer makes this very exciting if you want to do publishing. I recently created my first magazine and did not have the money to publish it. So, I went the route of digital PDF download. People really enjoyed it and I am working on the next issue. But, with MagCloud, I could now offer a printed version. Visit the site so you can see why I want to use this company to print the mag for me.

    Also, the cheapest printer that I could find was around $2500 for 20 pages full color. This was a great post. If I had not found this story on MagCloud, my dream of publishing my mag would still just be a dream.

    thanks for all the info…

    p.s. my web site is inspiration-mag.com

    enjoy…

  20. @STONER and @Julie. I am the Creative Director of ZOOZOOM. While we may not last as an online format, our vision will. NY Times T Mag is a direct descendant of ZOOZOOM. That may not last either. But any aspersion that rich multimedia content (big images, video, animation, audio all in the same space) served on a range of devices will not replace print is simply retarded. Even if print remains better, screens and devices will be more common. I still buy vinyl, I love it. But it is not a mainstream format anymore.

    @STONER – ‘Web is perfect for immediate, timely, disposable info (this is why newspapers are suffering). Print magazines are still in demand for their tactile, read-on-demand, portable, collectible and archival properties (this is why National Geographic isn’t suffering).’. ZOOZOOM is read-on-demand, portable, collectible and archival. Until we have touch screens it is not tactile. But you miss the point, you see the web as static, it’s only just begun, the problems it has now, it will not have in 5 years. I’m sure the first printing presses were not good at everything. They were developed over time. All of print (news and mags and …) is experiencing flux or decline, not just news.

    @Julie – ‘why no music in the Spin stories??’. This for me says everything about why the Spin format is also a temporary format. Why would anyone publish a music magazine without the music, it it were possible that they could? This is also retarded.

    Notwithstanding all this, this on demand mag, MagCloud, is even using digital terminology (‘cloud’).

    Quite obviously it will be digital supported by print except for a few very rare exceptions.

    @Rob. You even acknowledge this – ‘The great potential for this technology is that all things that are web based can now offer a hard copy of their content to consumers at virtually no cost (except all the time to design it).’ Although the statement ‘at virtually no cost’ seems a little rash. The design of a magazine is one of the ways it adds value to content. Its value should not be underestimated, nor its cost.

    Regards
    Mike
    Creative Director
    ZOOZOOM

  21. Mike@ZooZoom – Great insight by someone successful directly in the digital format.

    I wrote yesterday about this on the original thread here, but I’m also not sure of the “virtually no cost” part of this. I think this is where both print and web miss this all of the time. Content costs money. And similar to what Mike said, design adds value. I’m dubious to how many designers out there can produce a product like this and how many will do it for little to no cost. These are big design jobs. If its a “do it yourself” job, be prepared to see MagCloud producing lots of junk and a few gems (just like the Internet does daily).

    Regardless of that, I’m seeing that the audience are some of these folks who have been making PDF magazines already through digital distribution. But isn’t it funny, how much the arguing here about digital or print, and the audience seems to be digital people? I think its undeniable there’s a sense of value that comes from being able to hold your product. Not trying to start that argument again, just noting what I’m seeing.

    To one of the previous replies on here, I think if you had 2,000 people you know you would buy, you would get them professionally printed. Even if you paid $2/issue, you’re still able to make so much more profit compared to this service. However, if your audience range is more 100-500, I think this is a viable service that could help catapult your audience to a larger size at some point. But like I said, at those kinds of profit margins, its going to be either a labor of love/zine or issues will be few and infrequent.

  22. This is SO funny…

    HOW come no-one’s noticed that the old-paradigm magazines were paid-for by advertisers, because the magazine was Content Produced To Deliver Eyes To Adverts(tm)…

    Bogus, as advert-radio is.

    The advertisers want the mag to be what they WANT the “demographic” to be, not what it actually is…

    So the whole paradigm was hijacked by its own concerted ignoring.

    Contrarily, with MagCloud, I could publish a magazine with ZERO adverts in it, and have the ones who want it, scattered thinly through the world, buy it, themselves.

    Which would make it more like a book ( kept, rather-than trashed ), which would make it more like valued photography ( rather-than a scrap-book devised by a schizoid ), and which would make it more part of content-story, possibly to be shared & passed-along for years!

    Do YOU read books online?

    Or do you read physical books you can write notes into ( to develop the discussion in new ways, for the next readers )?

    It’s simply a different function, for content that isn’t “so 10-minutes ago…”, you know?

    How excellent that Julie struck & probed this question, ay?

    : )

  23. @22: Captain, the magazine world is not as obvious as you think. I can tell you that our magazine attracts advertisers because of its content and readership demographics, not the other way around. It’s easy to blame the big bad advertisers, but they’re not always big and they’re not always bad. Let me clue you in to something: it costs this little magazine $100,000 to produce each issue – do you think I could spread those costs solely across our 100,000 circulation that nets about a 40% sell-through and stay in business?

    In contrast, I can give you a different example: “Thrasher” magazine – arguably the most influential magazine of its kind – was initially created as a vehicle to sell its publisher’s fledgling skateboard equipment business’ products. Essentially, it was first published to sell its owner’s stuff. But it’s become a cultural icon and has been largely responsible for an entire photography and journalism movement. It wouldn’t be as successful as it is without being a great content magazine. Is that bad?

    MagCloud should be the perfect way for you to reach a minute, select audience who will be rabid fans of yours. And it won’t force you to take the type of chances the newsstand dictates.

    But you’re wrong about newsstand magazines and their relationships with advertisers. You’re not giving consumers enough credit to call bullshit on any magazine that’s solely driven by advertisers…

  24. I signed up for the beta two or three weeks ago and haven’t heard a word from them, not even a polite “screw you”. Don’t think that’s a very good service…

  25. Hi everyone,

    I have just put a new magazine called Special Report on the Magcloud site (see http://www.magcloud.com/browse/Issue/68837/ ) and it is a great system for small publishers like me.

    It may be though, not a good one to rely on unless you have extensive marketing for the magazine. In two days of existence, just one copy sold and under 100 visits from potential buyers.

    Still, it may be a great way of making other digital products more viable. Everyone seems confused about content and content people will pay for. Really, the magazine is now obsolete in some ways versus the powerhouse of information on the Internet.

    Though that is not specifically why we buy magazines. And still the portability and ease of read of a magazine is superior to most handheld devices.

    So in sum, Magcloud may just be part of your publishing efforts and it will probably be the case that most of the money from a magazine publication will be from selling it to the handheld device.

    Print editions of great magazines, still should sell modestly well and the economics of the industry will doubtless change considerably over the next few years, so perhaps not for some. Ad rates may become irrelevant or simply not the main income source for a publication.

  26. Looking to transpose images from my Blog towards a magazine format/platform.

    View blog content at: 4me4you.tumbr.com

    RSVP with number of pags available per month.

    I look forward to your immediate response.

    RSVP

    Glen – we2talk@hotmail.co.uk


Comments are closed for this article!