Sorry if I seem a little slow on the uptake regarding today's rather hefty layoff, of, by my count, at least 10 people from my favorite former employer, AdweekMedia. Wasn't in the office for much of the day, but here's what I think: even though the magazines will now, at last, share editorial operations, I still find it amazing the company has once again managed to sidestep what should be inevitable: combining the Adweek, Brandweek and Mediaweek brands into a single publication, kind of like, uh, Ad Age. Partly because it took me so damn long to post today, this isn't a new thought. As PaidContent.org's Rafat Ali said: "If they were really serious about long term viability, at least one of those three [magazines] should have been closed down, if you ask me, and possibly even two."Instead, the company offers up a peculiar strategy in which there are still three magazines, but one staff. Does this mean reporters now have three bosses? That the magazines will carry the same content in different packaging? It's hard to tell from the official release, which says: "This integrated, yet industry audience-targeted approach to sharing content between brands is supported by the fact that only 1.5 percent of all of the print subscribers of Adweek, Brandweek and Mediaweek receive all three publications, which alleviates the potential for delivering repetitive content to subscribers." Well, I guess, but last time I checked, producing print cost money--producing customized print publications for three audiences with ever more interlocking interests costs even more, and to what advantage? As it's far easier to slice-and-dice content in customized form in a digital environment, that's where the three brands should continue to exist, if anywhere. Thus, it seems like the place for savings shouldn't necessarily be in cutting staff--too many talented have lost their jobs there--but in cutting down on other big costs, like three print publications, which, by the time they finally arrive, are increasingly an afterthought in a news-on-demand world. That takes courage, but better to make one massive, very difficult decision than dozens of smaller ones. Get on with it, people.
4 comments:
It's over for all three publications. Not because of the cliched excuses of a bad economy or the print media being history. (If that were the case, AdAge would be in the same situation.) Long ago, someone made the decision to allow all three of these publications to become "anti-trade" publications. They positioned themselves as antagonists to the companies, brands, and agencies they covered, which is a particularly bonehead decision given the fact that they cover the advertising industry. It didn't take long for companies to cut both subscriptions and advertising en masse. The folks at Neilsen can trim and spin all they want. They can combine publications or not combine them. It doesn't matter. I agree that there is room for only one publication. The market has spoken, and that publication is AdAge.
So let me get this straight, Anonymous: Ad Age will survive because it doesn't print anything bad about the industry it covers. That doesn't seem to make Ad Age a very useful publication ...
anonymous 1,
Have you ever read either publication, dude? Ad Age has and continues to trash the industry when it feels fit. The truth is, Adweek started falling apart when it stopped playing the edgy smart-ass role. Ad Age ultimately took Adweek’s bravado.
The market hasn’t spoken that there is only room for one publication. We only have one choice because Nielsen is doing such a bang-up job of publishing completely unreadable content. Additionally, new sources are appearing that make Adweek even more irrelevant—Adrants comes to mind, as well as Adpulp, Adscam and Adverganza.
BTW, Catharine, I liked this post. Hearing your opinion on matters is always a welcome thing. Wish you would produce more like it to supplement the morning picks.
It's got less to do with which publication is kinder and gentler to the industry (though I do agree that Adweek lost its objectivity years ago). Adage covers all angles of the business pretty well while Neilsen uses three distinct publications to accomplish the same mission. Who has the time or inclination for that? Combining three barely relevant publications into one seems like it's "too little, to late." And who's going to create compelling content? Let's face it, any editorial talent at Adweek hit the bricks a long, long time ago.
Post a Comment