INKISH.NEWS -

It's kind of strange. A couple of days ago, Playboy announced that they are shutting down their printed magazine. Once again, the coronavirus is blamed for this, and whether this is correct or not, it raises some more profound underlying questions about business models in general.

Magazines, like Playboy, is based on subscriptions and most likely subsidized by adverts, so maybe the real reason for closing down the print edition is not the corona, but the fact that the value of the magazine vs the cost of production isn't aligned.

If subscribers want the magazine, the cover- and subscription rate could be levelled with the actual cost one would assume? With an annual subscription rate of only $34.95~$59.99, the magazine (four editions) hasn't a higher value or not enough people will buy/subscribe to the magazine? It isn't any more complicated than that. If Playboy can't increase prices to be profitable, they can either make the product more valuable or lower the cost. They chose the latter.

Blame everything on corona is maybe not entirely fair, but the corona reveals some of the more underlying problems for many media. Most of us are too vulnerable. Depending financially on advertisers and sponsors will according to multiple sources, cost the lives of a range of trade media. The reason is that crisis often lead to cut-downs fast - and the first things many vendors will look into is, obviously, the variable cost - and here advertising is an easy pick.

The paradox is that trade media is still expected to bring press releases so the vendors can get the communication to market - hint relying on free distribution. Some media like Sign & Print in Sweden have taken the consequences of this 'culture' - ONLY supporting companies that support them. From a financial perspective, and maybe even a moral view, I understand this - but I don't like it. I don't like it since I believe that all media should always be on their readers/viewers side - regardless!

Media must be independent, unbiased, and trustworthy. This will sometimes lead to discussions on whether a vendor should advertise in media, even the ones with a critical view of the vendor. The answer is, of course, yes.

Think about it for a moment. When a vendor chooses to advertise, it's because they want to communicate to a specific audience. If you publish a printed magazine to every printing company in the market for free, you don't have a relationship with your audience. You don't even know them, and even worse. You don't even care. You become 100% dependent on the advertisers - and you will fail when advertisers pull the support.

In the "old times" trade media were able to combine a strong editorial/journalistic approach with advertising and still being unbiased. The balance and integrity were intact, and I believe the content was way more trusted. Where and when do you see a review of technology these days? No-where!

So trade media don't know, and many don't even understand the challenges printers have. They don't know their audience and many deliver stories that have no value to their readers/viewers. It may be a harsh judgement, but at LabelExpo in Brussels last year, I publically announced this - and I believe it is the truth for all trade media including my own. We need to do something. Reach is one thing, the business model second, and the industry also needs to support the media they believe can support their communication needs in the future. Otherwise, there will be NO channels!

This, of course, doesn't mean that INKISH isn't useful and that we don't reach part of the intended audience, but it raises a question like "what happens if all trade media stop - in print, in film, on the web".

The PR agencies free-being on media work, distribution, and reach, will have an even lower or close to zero value. PR companies are hated by MOST trade media. The number of press releases, media receives, is staggering. Even companies who never spend a single dollar on advertising expect to get free coverage? PR companies are presenting themselves as valuable content creators - come on, take a look at most of the press-releases delivered—bad, bad, bad. Only a few PR-people/companies have an insight that brings value to printers. I spoke to a PR individual just a few weeks ago and was told - "if the media mailing list is the only value a PR company have then they don't have any value at all." (free from memory). This is so right. PR companies claim to deliver "valuable content", but they serve press-releases written by writers who have no interest nor knowledge about the product they write. They write press-releases about topics where you don't need a degree to understand that a printer somewhere in the US, somewhere in Brazil, somewhere in Germany or somewhere else, couldn't give a shit about.

At the same time vendors complain about media who rarely use the press-releases to do anything. They just deliver the press-releases "as is" and again - noise—no freaking value.

Some editors are capacities, and they do understand both the technology, the markets, the printers, and pretty much everything. Those media vendors should support.

However, every crisis has victims, and I am confident that some media won't survive. It will require re-thinking business models, and it will lead to better media. Vendors will need to look into where the value is the highest. Vendors will have to look into what media brings real value. Is the number of clicks, conversions, etc., really the measures you want? Or is it about time to value the content that can support the industry and the future of the same?

Your call!

Mar 21, 2020

Author: Morten B. Reitoft