Rebirth, really? This was a nice trip down memory lane, as I love magazines. I'm someone who would much rather have a copy of say, the Guardian's Panama Papers

Rebirth, really? This was a nice trip down memory lane, as I love magazines. I'm someone who would much rather have a copy of say, the Guardian's Panama Papers coverage in nice, graphical, glossy form, as opposed to a web link that will throw a newsletter signup form at me before I can even see the article. But I have not heard on any of the ones mentioned at the end of the article. They sound like limited-time boutique publications, and those have been around forever. My local cannabis store has one such 'publication', and it's 90% ads. Also, this bit is precisely why magazines died: >Forbes has shown the lasting value of legacy brands with its lucrative accolades business and franchises like 30 Under 30 that trade on the brand’s legacy of “standing for success.” Time has similarly shown how a legacy brand can be reshaped by focusing on new opportunities like web3 while leaning on lucrative franchises like Person of the Year. Magazines still have heft. "Forbes" is basically Huffington Post; anybody can contribute to the online version. The print version obviously is different, but also not taken seriously. "Published in Forbes" is the sort of resume line item held by your average Medium.com writer. The "30 under 30" is pay-to-play; it's the previous generation's version of becoming an influencer. Find one person on that list in the past 5 years that amounted to something. No comment on TIME magazine, the writing there was at an 8th grade level even in the '90s.