I just don’t think magazine publishers understand — most content today that they produce isn’t worth paying big money for. The topics are predictable. The coverage is bland and generalized. The interviews are cookie-cutter. And so much of the magazine is filled with advertisements that — a) don’t speak to me as a reader, b) fail to provide me with any action that I can easily take, or c) don’t relate in any significant way to the content that I am paying to review — that I barely get any content in the first place.
via WeMedia.com. Thanks, Andy.
12 Comments
Yes, UK and French magazines are generally much superior to American mags in content. I don’t think they’re as beholden to the advertisers. I’m thinking of things like Car and Chasseurs D’Images.
Oh, don’t forget Evo- fantastic car nagazube that really is honest about what they think.
I totally agree, I have always had several magazines I subsribe to but it seems that now you read the same articles every issue and actually in most different publications. I now only subscribe to 2 magazines.
This is soooo true.
question is … is that a function of the writers or the editors?
@heatherroxbk,
owners
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, and writers all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues shot no being shot at the in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff at many of the magazines, creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, and writers all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues now being shot at the in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff at many of the magazines, creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
Safe, Safe, Safe seems to be the guiding principle of today’s esteemed publishers. In the past magazines like Glamour and Mademoiselle managed to present the same themed stories year after year, repeating content/ideas – to their new subscribers and readers with creative concepts and visuals. Ideas, and issues evolve and unique ways to cover the stories presented challenges to art directors, writers, illustrators and photographers. Fashion photographers, still life photographers, stylists, writers and art directors all had the motivation to CREATE. With entire issues now being shot at the magazine’s in-house studio and art directed by the barely legal staff , creativity is nearly extinct. Who is asking for creative solutions, Editors? Art Directors? Creative Directors? The “kids” on staff?
What magazine has been rewarded for taking creative risk, and if they received awards has it changed their bottom line?
Advertisers are going to have to tell the magazines that they demand better products if they are going to spend ad dollars, but it seems that magazines, which are now nothing but bad catalogs, feel that they can solicit advertisers with a mere mention of their products. Magazines do not create allure, desire or mystic – they are sale sheets for the masses.
Vogue and other hi-toned mags used to credit the fragrance the model was wearing. It resonated illusion, style and intrigue – albeit pretentious – yet it set a tone and advertisers and consumers responded.
I can easily understand the argument that the magazines are dead. If our social evolution is now limited to 140 characters, real housewives, “staycations” and dancing b-list celebrities is it a wonder that we need to be told what to read, wear, do and don’t. There seems to be a consensus at the magazines that readers have to be shown what to buy, exactly…not what to want, covet or even admire. Creativity and creative thinking are now luxuries that seem to demand too much work, with too little pay… information is a Google search away and the answer is most likely less then 140 characters long. Who need great visuals and creative writing when they can have immediate info with no fuss, no frills? Intrigue, controversy, entertainment, beauty – you wont find it on page 40, that is where we feature 12 affordable fashion trends, shot the exact same way, shown with the same layout, every single issue. And on page 41…Bring back fantasy, talk smart to readers and consumers, make people talk about what you are saying and find advertisers that would rather address a smart consumer. The will want to advertise with you because it ELEVATES their brands. Stop address Joe the Plumbers wife, she gets all the shopping information she needs from Valpaks.
@Dante, you don’t by chance have a point, do you ,) Having quit a major publishing gig for the same reasons, I do hear ya. Just read that Steven Brill and friends suggest moving failing newspapers to the big world wide web idea? Sounds brilliant, if it were 1999. But, 2009, a bit late on movement?
Safe is indeed the controlling principle. If we don’t say anything, we can’t be held responsible for what we said. This is true of books, magazines and US business. We want to minimize risks, but nothing is accomplished without risk.
i’m rarely willing to pay for a magazine anymore.
wp.
Comments are closed for this article!