Leo F. Buscaglia (1924 -1998) was a teacher at the University of Southern California in the late 1960s when one of his students committed suicide. This so greatly affected Professor Buscaglia that, in his pursuit for meaning of the sad event, he formed a non-credit class titled Love 1A. As you might expect, there were no grades for Love 1A, because how could you possibly fail someone in this class on that subject?
He became a cheerleader for Life, and he was most closely associated with the topic of love and human relationships, emphasizing the value of positive human touch, especially hugs. He once said, "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around."
You might ask, what this has to do with media and especially my review of the PRIMEX Conference held in New York City two weeks ago? Well, it was the professor who came to my mind when my good friend Daniel Dejan, who is the Print & Creative Manager of Sappi Fine Papers, opened the event. I know a world full of nice and wonderful people, but I'd have to rack my brains to find a man or woman with more glowing love for life and humans and the pure joy of creativity. I know Daniel quite well, so it was no surprise that his presentation that day was "The Haptic Brain/Haptic Brand and the Neuroscience of Touch." And, as Professor Buscaglia said, "... too often we underestimate the power of a touch..."
RE: The Fate of the Newsstand Isn't the Same as the Fate of Print
Bo, I think we often gloss over the fact that the publishing industry has created a rather wide value gap in what we charge for subs vs single copy. I would submit most of the large publishers offer subs almost at the same price of buying one issue from the newsstand, therefore, driving the business south. XXXXX Media does not do this, and as a result we have 60/40 subs/newsstand. Also, our business was up last year and we budgeted another growth in single copy this year. (Submitted by a Publisher)
RE: The Fate of the Newsstand Isn't the Same as the Fate of Print
Bo, you have been saying this for years and rightly so. Newsstand isn't the be all and end all for the publishing industry and not all the news is actually bad anyway. My titles are doing very well despite the overall declines. I have a sweet spot and my audience is strong. Thanks for all you do for the industry. I enjoy my morning cup of coffee and Bo. Although we have never met I feel like I know you and that we are friends. (Submitted by a Publisher)
So here we are again with some dreary numbers and a continuation of print's adjustment from King-o-the-Hill to mere but honored participant in the multiverse of the world's communication network. Last year I gave my perspective on the subject, and it still holds true.
I have many friends who are publishers and many friends who are printers. Most of these compatriots, that I know, despite the generally negative numbers, are doing well, and some are actually thriving. That's the funny thing about aggregate numbers - even if the overall analysis is bad or even terrible, and it is, it doesn't mean a damn thing if your printing plant or your publication is doing well. So there ya have it - the only meaningful bottom line in this period of stressful monetary communication wars is, how are you doing?
As the printing pond gets smaller and smaller, which it obviously is by any standard of reporting, what is left by Darwin's publishing laws of supply and demand should become increasingly more expensive and therefore more valuable. All you have to do is to survive the current Armageddon and put out the most outstanding products possible for those who are still addicted and still hungry for printed reading products. Give the readers what they want, on the substrate that they want, and when they want it at that moment in time. Simple really. Just be beyond excellent in every part of your enterprise.
BoSacks Readers Speak Out: An Important Correction on "Print Ads with Money-Back Guarantee" & More
RE: BoSacks Speaks Out: Major Publishers Bet on Print Ads with Money-Back Guarantee
Thanks for sharing this article with your massive distribution list! We all appreciate your ongoing support of magazine media. Just wanted to make one clarification. We don't set a minimum ad spend threshold but in order to be eligible for the Industry Sales Guarantee, an advertiser must reach a GRP threshold of 150 Adults 18+ GRPs. On average, the Sales Guarantee programs we've conducted at Meredith are based on a spend somewhere between $1-$2 million over 12 months for print campaign - nowhere near the $10 million ad buy you mention as the requirement (although we wouldn't say no to that!). Thanks again for your interest in this exciting new MPA initiative (and thanks for coming to the AMMC breakout session!). (Submitted by Britta Cleveland | Senior Vice President, Research Solutions) CLICK HERE FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
Here is my take on PubWorx LLC, the joint venture to combine circulation, procurement and production functions by Condé Nast and Hearst Magazines. Distilled down to their lowest common denominator production departments are about great efficiency and superior quality, probably in that order, but variable depending on the particular organization. The skills include shrewd procurement and a great proficiency in manufacturing and distribution. On the other hand, circulation is still less a science and more akin to alchemy, but many circulator's will no doubt dispute that concept.
The conjoining of the two companies makes perfect efficient sense to me. Again with a probable dispute by some professionals who read this, production departments just make interchangeable widgets. We put ink or pixels in the exact right place and fling them hither and yon around the globe. It doesn't really matter if we are making one widget or a hundred. Our job is to coordinate at the most reasonable price with the best possible quality in that price range, and "ship" on time and with great regularity.
The production process is agnostic to content. We don't really care what it is and so can combine and ship an unlimited number of disparate titles from unlimited companies. As Archimedes sort of said, Give me a production staff smart enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: - IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus
Many thanks for sending Rothenberg's IAB speech. What gas! It's been a long time since I've read anything that was so wrong to begin with and then got worse. I've never understood the kerfuffle over ad blockers... but now I'm thinking that if this fellow hates them so much I should probably get one. (Submitted by a Publisher and Official BoSacks Cub Reporter)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: - IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus
How about freedom of privacy? I'd think that would include the freedom to go onto the Internet without being stalked. (Submitted by a Writer)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: - IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus
Bo, there are so many news and magazine sites i've stopped going to because videos start playing automatically or windows start opening in my browser. there are many sites that have so much multimedia going on that browser caches fill and never load properly or degrade the site performance. it's ugly. so guess what? whenever i learn of something of interest in an e-newsletter or in a news search, and i see that it links to a site that does that, i look for that topic elsewhere. (Submitted by an Industry Analysist)
Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: - IAB's Rothenberg Blasts Adblock-Plus
Mr. Rothenberg is wrong. No one wants to see ads. They are intrusive and unwanted. And, I would hope that the companies that are developing Ad Blockers are pro-profit. (Submitted by a printer)
Full disclosure: I may or most likely may not be the normal reading consumer on the internet, and for the record I do use ad blocking software. Without it my day on the web was increasingly a painful, slow and a terribly intrusive experience. Also for the record, and most importantly, I am willing to pay for the reading material I want and need. I pay for the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Texture (formally known as Next Issue Media) among several others. In fact, it is no secret that most of my working day is either reading on the web or writing about what I read. So I am something of an expert about the on-line user experience.
Here is my take on the situation. Ad blocking is serious business brought upon us by our own misuse of trust given to us by the reading public, the trust we had correctly build up over the last 100 years as the guardians of publishing and of print. I have always felt that the publishing community and the rest of the advertising internet infrastructure has from the outset abused the privileges of permission on-line. I don't want to be tracked by companies that want not only a large slice of my wallet but also the uninvited intrusion into my mind and how I'm thinking and where I am at any given moment. I am also offended that these unsought intrusions that slow down my web experience with bloated and unwanted downloads. FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE CLICK HERE
There is a recent article titled Print vs. Digital: Another Emotional Win for Paper, that came across my info-radar today. Articles like these are always popping up. They are interesting to me, because science must do what science does, question everything. As a geek-at-heart, I am all for the pursuit of knowledge. I sometimes think that all good production people are geeks, but that is a story for another day.
There are several things that must be pointed out in this article. The headline is click bait appealing to paper lovers and trying to confirm what they think they already know. However, the data here is not as overwhelming for the paper lovers as the headline suggests. The biggest issue is the supposed edge in the emotional response to paper as opposed to digital. To me that is much more generational than a universal law of astro-advertising.
The main thing to remember here is that in a very meaningful way none of this digital-does-this-and-paper-does-that-science will matter as we proceed further. Why, you wisely ask? Because, we aren't ever going to go back to being a major paper transmitting society. CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE
These are indeed turbulent times for a transforming industry, and forward thinking leadership is critical for the industry to help us adjust to these changing times. Newsstand sales and subscription sales in general continue to diminish. Are there standouts bucking the overall industry trend? Yes, most assuredly. But overall, the trends are down for the industry. Clearly we need to develop and broadcast a strategy that plays to our strengths and comes to grips with our weaknesses. Being in continual denial of our current position in the media wars just won't work.
For the record I am not a pessimist for the magazine media industry, nor a detractor of the print product. What I am is an unashamed realist. Print can accomplish things that digital can't and can provide a sizable ROI while doing so. At the same time it is obvious digital can accomplish feats that print products can only dream of. The downside with digital thus far is its slow growth of monetization for the magazine industry. What we need is the marriage of the two disciplines combining digital's creativity and its accountability gained from increasingly reliable metadata with the comfort and traditions of print. CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE
The current strain of schadenfreude coursing through the digital-publishing ecosystem regarding BuzzFeed is entirely understandable. Not particularly helpful, but entirely understandable.In late January, the Wall Street Journal reported that BuzzFeed was cutting 15 percent of its global workforce, resulting in about 250 layoffsand plenty of anger directed at BuzzFeed's leadership (as well as lots...
Facebook is breaking up with one of its fact-checking partners, raising fresh questions about the social network's commitment to fighting disinformation.Last week, the fact-checking site Snopes revealed that it would not stay on with the program this year; meanwhile The Associated Press is still evaluating its commitment. The program started in 2016 when Facebook tapped third-party fact-checkers...
ul, ol { font-size: 20px; line-height: 32px; Continue reading at AdAge.com
Vice Media is laying off 10 percent of its staff, marking the latest example of digital publishing's struggle to compete with Facebook and Google for advertisers' money.On Friday, Vice confirmed that it would cut around 250 of its 2,500-person work force, a move that was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter. Vice has faced a number of setbacks in the past year, including internal office...
What is the BoSacks FREE newsletter all about?
It is purely a very "personal" and slanted collection of news gathered daily over the Internet, which to me seems relevant and useful about the publishing industry. I do this as a labor of love and to keep myself as up to date as is possible with the ever changing and advancing "Information Distribution Industry" formerly known as "Publishing".
And how much does it cost?
The price for this service is nothing. It is Free. It is just as easy for me to copy three or four of my industry friends as it is to carbon copy the current list of 16,500 publishing professionals.
