3 ms·

This may be the most Hacker News comment I've ever seen. There are some sectors of the magazine industry, maybe science isn't one of them, that are actually do

This may be the most Hacker News comment I've ever seen. There are some sectors of the magazine industry, maybe science isn't one of them, that are actually doing really well. I've been on three different junkets with outdoors magazine editors in the past 6 months, and many large brands that advertise to the Duck Dynasty crowd are abandoning digital and going back to print. Digital, it turns out, is mostly a scam. I've written in other places about why this is, but the nutshell version is bad ROI metrics and, even worse, the incentives on all sides are so perverted that the bad metrics and rampant fraud are a fundamental structural/business problem that no amount of tech can solve. At any rate, the jig is, increasingly, up on digital (FB and Google excepted, because they run genuine performance advertising platforms at a scale that nobody else can match), and advertisers are actually going back to print, TV, radio -- venues where the ROI metrics are old, established, widely agreed upon, and fairly reliable. Anyway, this situation is very complex and very very very different from what the typical HN "dead tree is expensive and for losers, the future is digital!" commenter thinks. If anything is in real trouble right now for deep structural reasons, it's digital, not print. You probably find all this hard to believe -- I did at first until I heard it confirmed by the sixth or seventh person. I know that what I just said sounds like "up is down, and black is white", but this is how it is in 2017.

macNchz 9y ago
I really like print magazines...I have a print subscription to the New Yorker, New York Magazine and the Sunday NYTimes. The serendipitous discovery of interesting content, the ability to just grab it on the way out the door and the paper format make for a great experience. I think print based reading material will have a place for longer than most people would have predicted a few years ago.
mcguire 9y ago
For corroboration, check the begging notes at the bottom of Guardian articles and the recent enhancements of the NYT paywall.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  The begging is just so they can get free money. They know their audience are a bunch of saps. It is greed more than desperation.
Spooky23 9y ago
Great point. I've always been puzzled about how advertisers get any ROI online. I'm a very heavy internet user on a variety of topical areas, and my lifetime value for a content site is zero. Exceptions are NY Times, my local paper and Gartner, where either my employer or I pay for the content. I rarely click on ads. I've probably been a successful ad conversion less than a dozen times since 1996. Print is different. Getting ads is a significant reason for having a newspaper subscription. Many magazine ads are both more useful and more effective than the ad units that you se online. I probably made a Nikon/Canon decision based on a combination of print ads.
- ggrochow 9y ago
  Also, some of the print ads in nautilus aren't that bad. I've actually stopped and taken some extra time to think about a few. Less about what the ads trying to sell me, but the ad itself raises an interesting question.
backpropaganda 9y ago
Doesn't this whole counter-comment assume that advertising is the only reasonable source of revenue? The HN crowd (projecting from myself) has already given up on digital advertising and knows that even the best players are having a hard time making money with it. That doesn't make print any more reliable. For a magazine like nautilus, it's probably best to become successful as a subscription-based digital magazine, guarantee high-quality content, establish rapport with their customers, and then move to print if they want to rake in that extra advertisement dollars. That was the point of the parent comment, not "print sucks/digital rules!", but "digital is the right way to start a new magazine".
pryelluw 9y ago
Digital is definitely going through a much needed adjustment, but old media is not coming back. It is stabilizing after suffering a huge blow but wont grow back. Too much new media entertainment is coming out to have old media compete.
Optimal_Persona 9y ago
> Anyway, this situation is very complex and very very very different from what the typical HN "dead tree is expensive and for losers, the future is digital!" commenter thinks. If anything is in real trouble right now for deep structural reasons, it's digital, not print. Somehow TapeOp magazine manages to deliver ~41.5K free print subscriptions every other month, at least in the US (digital subscription is included). TapeOp has advertising, not sure if editor/publisher draw a salary, and I'm guessing that freelance interviewers/product reviewers get paid little if anything. Nonetheless, they've been the most kickass music production/recording magazine for more than 20 years. Some info on how they do it: http://tapeop.com/mediakit/print/ http://tapeop.com/mediakit/print/

macNchz 9y ago

I really like print magazines...I have a print subscription to the New Yorker, New York Magazine and the Sunday NYTimes. The serendipitous discovery of interesting content, the ability to just grab it on the way out the door and the paper format make for a great experience. I think print based reading material will have a place for longer than most people would have predicted a few years ago.

mcguire 9y ago

For corroboration, check the begging notes at the bottom of Guardian articles and the recent enhancements of the NYT paywall.

goldenkey 9y ago
The begging is just so they can get free money. They know their audience are a bunch of saps. It is greed more than desperation.

Spooky23 9y ago

Great point. I've always been puzzled about how advertisers get any ROI online. I'm a very heavy internet user on a variety of topical areas, and my lifetime value for a content site is zero. Exceptions are NY Times, my local paper and Gartner, where either my employer or I pay for the content. I rarely click on ads. I've probably been a successful ad conversion less than a dozen times since 1996. Print is different. Getting ads is a significant reason for having a newspaper subscription. Many magazine ads are both more useful and more effective than the ad units that you se online. I probably made a Nikon/Canon decision based on a combination of print ads.

ggrochow 9y ago
Also, some of the print ads in nautilus aren't that bad. I've actually stopped and taken some extra time to think about a few. Less about what the ads trying to sell me, but the ad itself raises an interesting question.

backpropaganda 9y ago

Doesn't this whole counter-comment assume that advertising is the only reasonable source of revenue? The HN crowd (projecting from myself) has already given up on digital advertising and knows that even the best players are having a hard time making money with it. That doesn't make print any more reliable. For a magazine like nautilus, it's probably best to become successful as a subscription-based digital magazine, guarantee high-quality content, establish rapport with their customers, and then move to print if they want to rake in that extra advertisement dollars. That was the point of the parent comment, not "print sucks/digital rules!", but "digital is the right way to start a new magazine".

pryelluw 9y ago

Digital is definitely going through a much needed adjustment, but old media is not coming back. It is stabilizing after suffering a huge blow but wont grow back. Too much new media entertainment is coming out to have old media compete.

Optimal_Persona 9y ago

> Anyway, this situation is very complex and very very very different from what the typical HN "dead tree is expensive and for losers, the future is digital!" commenter thinks. If anything is in real trouble right now for deep structural reasons, it's digital, not print. Somehow TapeOp magazine manages to deliver ~41.5K free print subscriptions every other month, at least in the US (digital subscription is included). TapeOp has advertising, not sure if editor/publisher draw a salary, and I'm guessing that freelance interviewers/product reviewers get paid little if anything. Nonetheless, they've been the most kickass music production/recording magazine for more than 20 years. Some info on how they do it: http://tapeop.com/mediakit/print/ http://tapeop.com/mediakit/print/