Guest post: Paul Dempsey
In the previous post, I referred to my three-part strategy for updating the blog even though I have been buried in deadlines. The first part of the strategy was to cadge someone else’s insight and write a quick, short riff on what that other guy said. The second part of my strategy is to outsource the whole post! So, now entering the lineup for The Dale, playing shortstop and batting cleanup, Paul Dempsey, web director at Ursinus College:
The Future of Print
As a web guy, I may be overstepping my bounds by participating in the CUE listserv. CUE, after all, stands for College and University Editors, and it’s reasonable to assume that only ink-stained wretches need apply. But I consider myself primarily a communicator and I’ve always worked closely with my print-based colleagues. So I follow the discussions and try to contribute when I can.
In addition to requests for headline help and advice on freelance writers and photographers, one recurring topic is the threats to traditional print-based magazines. These threats, generally attributed to “higher ups” or “powers that be,” include cutting pages or issues and moving publications online. The threats category picked up some steam a few weeks ago, following the announcement that Newsweek would be ending its print edition, becoming an online magazine. Robert Mendelson of Carnegie Mellon started a thread on CUE, aptly titled “Thanks a lot, Newsweek,” in which he noted that the Newsweek decision is again raising the question of a switch from print to online editions.
In the ensuing discussion, I was struck by the defensive tone of many of the comments. In addition to bashing Newsweek—one post called it “awful” and “dry, pedantic and visually dead”—the comments focused on the failure of online editions and the positive responses to magazine reader surveys. This was on my mind when I was watching CNN’s media show, Reliable Sources, which had a good segment about the Newsweek decision. It’s well worth 10 minutes of your time:
http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/newsweek-ending-print-run/
Host Howard Kurtz interviewed Tina Brown, Newsweek’s editor, about the factors that led to the decision to stop printing. While she naturally defended her decision, citing among other things the “inexorable force of the zeitgeist” (who talks like that?), I thought her comments about reading habits were particularly interesting. She noted from personal observation that fewer people seem to be reading print magazines and books in favor of reading on tablets. Citing the tremendous growth in tablet use, she said, “I want to go where our readers are.” This was echoed by author and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, who noted “there is still life in print, but clearly the future is digital.”
You may argue with their conclusions, but there is a lot to consider in these observations from people who have spent their careers in print journalism. As I noted, a lot of the discussions on CUE about the future of college magazines seem to be defensive and critical of any “higher-ups” who dare question the current model. Even though some of those questions may be misguided, there are important issues to consider.
I’m not suggesting it’s time to stop publishing college magazines. But it is important that we consider the impact of disruptive technologies and think of ways to stay ahead of change before it’s forced on us. The explosive growth of tablets in just a few years, for example, is clearly having an impact on reading habits and the publishing world.
I worry when editors cite failed early experiments in online publications and weak online readership data, for a number of reasons. The rapid change in our reading habits and use of technology means that data from one or two years ago may not accurately explain the current situation or predict the future. In addition, comparing online analytics with self-reported information from the CASE Readership Survey may not be particularly valid. As the survey report notes, there is always some inherent bias in these surveys and magazine survey respondents may be tilted toward readers and friends of the publication and institution.
Rather than finding reasons to defend the status quo,wouldn’t we be better off keeping an open mind? As some CUE posters noted, we are not Newsweek. We don’t cover world news, come out every week, or rely on paid subscriptions. These are all advantages, giving us flexibility to explore these new platforms as we try to engage alumni and other audiences to communicate what is special about our institutions.
The stories we tell with good writing and photos (and now video and audio) will remain important. The methods of delivery are evolving, though, and may include combinations of print magazines, web sites, tablet apps or e-magazines, and e-mails to drive readers to the content. Rather than react to the higher-ups or powers-that-be, we need to lead in order to guide them to consider change sensibly.
Excellent column, Paul.
I would love for our website to feature high-quality articles that include video and audio, stories we could pitch in a variety of ways to our readers. Unfortunately, the message I hear is to “repurpose” stories for the web, as though that’s something that can be done in a minute or two.
I think our colleges and universities could do a ton of things via websites, but at this point they don’t want to invest in the personnel to make such things happen. As I sit here, I realize it’s much like what happened when personal computers began to be used—everyone became a newsletter editor!
Next it was digital cameras and—everyone became a photographer!
Now, it’s “everyone can put things on the website!” Whether they’re quality items that tell more about our colleges doesn’t seem to matter.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I tire of “higher ups” who make pronouncements about wanting to change things without taking the time to do their own homework or to sit down with me and talk about the goals of the college and how I can contribute to those efforts.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and hope you’ll continue speaking out on CUE. We need to hear from you!
Great insights, Paul—and Denise!
I have to say, though, that—at least from my perspective—getting higher-ups and powers-that-be to “consider change sensibly” is so much easier said than done. And maybe that’s why so many people commenting on CUE sound so defensive—because they know from past, painful experience that their expertise and knowledge can and will be ignored whenever a higher-up is distracted by a shiny new toy.
Denise and Tina:
You’re both right, it is frustrating to fight uninformed opinions. (“We can just put it on the web and save all that money printing and mailing the magazine.”) It definitely costs money to make a transition or add online content effectively. That’s why it’s important for communications professionals to be seen as leading the way, rather than reacting. I’m experienced enough (read “old”) to know that it’s not always possible, but we need to try.
Well said, Paul.
I was reading the Newsweek thread as I was in the midst of launching a fully online university magazine. (It went live on Friday.) I too was surprised by some of the responses from other editors to the Newsweek announcement. On a separate but related note, I was equally bemused by the utterly negative response to the suggestion that we make the CUE list a Facebook page. It never occurred to me editors might not be on Facebook. I’m an admin for our university’s FB page and I use FB all the time for work purposes. And now that we have a fully online magazine, social media is even more important.
The point about repurposing magazine stories online is right on. I think it is important to communicate to higher-ups that online magazines are different than print in many ways. Therefore, you need people with different skills than traditional print editors. You need people who can edit videos and mix sound and create digital slide shows. We didn’t really save any money by going online because we hired two new full-time employees: a senior multimedia producer and a digital media manager.
For a long while, we would post our magazine as a flipbook online. I was constantly being asked for links to stories. People want sharable content. We have alumni all over the world, a campus in China and one in Jamaica. Those communities want to see the magazine. Now they can.
I recently found myself bemoaning a print-only publication. My husband had an op-ed (on the Mommy Wars) published in the journal Women In Higher Education recently. It’s a nice print publication with a terrible website. My husband’s piece was nowhere to be found online. I really wanted to share that essay with colleagues in higher education and all my fellow working mother friends. I finally emailed around a PDF, which I am sure no one read. Who wants to look at a PDF of a print publication in their email? What a loss to that publication . . . so many more people could be reading and sharing their stories if the magazine were available online.
I am, for the record, a print person. I grew up in newsrooms and was a newspaper reporter for many years. I subscribe to seven or eight magazine at home. My very tech savvy colleagues would laugh out loud to know that I am advocating for online magazines. I’m are not ready to replace our print magazine with digital, but I have fully embraced the possibilities online offers.