« April 2024 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
Ad review
Advertising
Marketing
Media  «
Online marketing
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Stan's betaBlog: media marketing communications culture
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
How does it feel to be on your own...
Topic: Media

"All the news that fits" indeed. Rolling Stone magazine has announced that it is giving up its over-sized format for a more conventional 8 x 11 size in October.

I’m sort of sad about this. On one level it seems like hearsay, or at the very least the loss of a uniquely identifying characteristic that helps Rolling Stone stand out in a crowded marketplace. But what this is not is any fin de cicle changing of the guard. As my good friend Gary writes in reaction:


“Sadly, Rolling Stone stopped being Rolling Stone, a long time ago. I was a near charter subscriber to the Stone and watched its Gibbon's-like fall into ruin and ashes with dismay and anger ineluctably morphing into the 20th century's great disease: apathy.”

On the other hand, you have to admire Jann Wenner’s bravado-and staying power. There’s a reason Rolling Stone continues to thrive as a business, instead of being some kind of historic relic of the hey day of Haight-Ashbury (which the original long abandoned RS culture that Gary rightly mourns actually is). Wenner’s always followed the money, and in that sense he’s always been more attuned to the self-centred, coolly calculating Boomer generation than that cohort with its mythical peace, love and freedom rep would like to admit. This quote from the New York Times piece this week about the change says it all: “All you’re getting from that large size is nostalgia.”

The Times reports that Rolling Stone’s current 1.4 million paid circulation is the highest in its history. But newsstand single copy sales, always a key barometer of publishing buzz, have tumbled from 189,000 in 1999, to 132,000 last year. “Magazine racks at bookstores, newsstands and checkout counters tend to be made for the standard dimensions, and if Rolling Stone is there, it is often on a high or low shelf, out of eye level, or even on its side or folded over.” This aims to fix all that.

By the way, the latest data on Canadian magazine newsstand circulations, also out this week, are fairly distressing. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, single copy newsstand sales are down a precipitous 22.3% this year over last, with total circ down 6.3%. There are methodology nuances that might be at play here, but this is yet more hard evidence of which way the wind is blowing. And, to paraphrase another iconic voice from the 60s, you don’t need a weather man to tell you that.

But in case you do, Bruce Claassen, chairman of Aegis Media Canada, and CEO, Genesis-Vizeum Inc., told Marketing Daily the other day that a single year drop like this is “in and of itself is not something for publishers to get alarmed about,” but...

“Consumers are much more comfortable reading digital products than they once were and publishers need to find a way to both track those readership numbers and generate revenue from online content. The big challenge for publishers is how do we work on multiple platforms and how do we monetize that content.”


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 2:20 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 13 August 2008 2:32 PM EDT
Monday, 23 June 2008
How to go digital native fast + the search for an online media monetary model
Topic: Media

Earlier this month I had the good fortune of introducing Bill Dunphy, the tech-savvy journalist who is currently running the Torstar Metroland West Media Group's WebU, at the Mags U conference put on by Canadian Business Press and Masthead magazine at Toronto’s Old Mill.


The session was titled “Journalism 2.0 – A Digital Survival Guide for Editors.” But frankly what Bill talked about is instructive to anyone involved in any aspect of marketing and communications these days. And certainly the Web U “boot camp” he runs is aimed at all departments of the Metroland West (that’s west of T.O.) local and community papers, including general management, sales, marketing and circulation people as well as editorial types.


You could call Bill a newspaper industry lifer. In 26 years in the news business, he has worked as an editor, copy editor, daily news columnist, investigative reporter, crime reporter, satirist and weather columnist at community and daily newspapers in Toronto and Hamilton. You may also know him as the guy at the Hamilton Spectator who was taken to court by Hamilton Police in 2005 for refusing to hand over his notes from interviews with a murder suspect (he and the Spec eventually won the case at the appeals level about a year ago).


At the Spectator Bill chaired a staff group that introduced breaking news, blogging, video and podcasting to the newsroom and their website, thespec.com. His interest in the computers dates back to 1974 when he had to learn Basic programming for a part-time job in high school. In the years that followed, he used computers in the newsroom for writing, to build databases, create collaborative software, crunch numbers and do his own desktop publishing. Since the Web was born he's been a newsroom leader in adopting web tools for newsroom use, building online databases, blogs and wikis and playing a key role in training other staff in those technologies. Hence, his current role.


I thought by Bill’s advice on the four things everyone can do to “go native” in the land of digital fast was especially smart.  I asked him to recap the points in a post-presentation conversation we had in the Old Mill garden, and I’ve posted a clip of that on YouTube here.

 

Top line, his four fast tips are:

• start a blog
• set up an RRS feed
• sign on for twitter
• edit and post a bit of video

Do these things, Bill says, and even the most technophobic can be half way to comprehending all the revolutionary changes new media is bringing. Just messing around and getting your hands dirty with the stuff opens your eyes to the implications and possibilities.

Bill also had some good thoughts on the challenges media have right now in figuring out models to finally start making serious money online. He admits to not having any firm answers, and doubts anyone really has any yet. Interestingly, he suggested that magazines are perhaps best positioned to thrive in the new media environment, in large part because they are already extremely niche focused. (This isn’t to gloss over the fact that the magazine industry went through a massive and traumatic adjustment from being the dominant national mass media in 1950 to its now predominantly niche focus when the biggest of the last century’s revolutionary new media, TV, swept across the landscape.) And in the case of B-to-B magazines, their content may well be specialized enough as to charge for it.

But one of the smartest things he reminded us all –and I’ve never heard this said before, which says something- is that the newspaper industry, the one he grew up in, got its start in the 18th and early 19th century when printers went looking to find something to do with all the excess capacity they had. So in effect, the newspaper as we know them started without a clear business model…a cool new format and technology awkwardly looking to monetize itself.  Sounds awfully familiar.

Bill also writes a prescient blog about online media, but touching on all things Web 2.0 really, that he dubs The Idea Factory.



Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 10:19 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 23 June 2008 11:54 AM EDT
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Trad media online: avid cautiousness
Topic: Media
My partner in crime on the panel yesterday afternoon discussing how traditional media is adapting to a new media world, at the Canadian Institute PR conference, was Larry Cornies, currently a night news section editor at the Globe and Mail. Larry has posted some well thought out points on theses questions and issues on his own blog.

Larry, of course, has a ringside seat at what is probably this country’s most respected news organization –and one that is as innovative as any mainstream media company in the world in the online space. Indeed, he notes the Alex Frame, the head of Globeandmail.com, says the site is logging five million unique visitors a month, has been profitable for about four years now, and bringing in revenue in the high end of the 10%-15% of total company revenue that is typical for the newspapers within online arms.

But Larry’s perspective is also of note because he was the long time the editor of the London Free Press, until quitting about a year and half ago because he couldn’t live with the strategic direction its current owners, Quebecor/Sunmedia, had in mind for the once very good and very influential Southwestern Ontario regional media voice. (In his post Larry speaks a little bit to the sad decline of the Freeps, which like a lot of mid-market papers have been far more negatively impacted by the changing face of the media world than the big national papers and dailies like La Presse in Montreal, the Star in Toronto and some of the Canwest properties in the larger markets.) He’s also an instructor in the newspaper program at the Ryerson journalism school. And –full disclosure- we also attended journalism school together at UWO back in the, gulp, mid-80s.

So to the question “How are traditional media outlets adapting to the electronic age?” Larry’s bottom line is: “avidly — but cautiously”

He rightly gives old-line media more credit for plunging in and adapting than maybe I have implied in my recent posts on this question. The Web has now, in people years, probably just passed puberty, and most major media entities in this country have had a serious web presence of sorts for at least a decade now. They are investing and experimenting.

But Larry argues that the radical pace of change, and the owners of media conglomerates desire to maintain existing profit margins (not unreasonably, frankly) means that important things are perhaps being lost. He rightly notes that while most media companies are investing in new fangled online tools and formats and channels, very few media companies –the Globe being one- are increasing their investment in actual journalism. That is: good, relevant stories well told by great writers. Which doesn’t come cheap, and can never be replaced by a thousand UR Sudburys (as useful and interesting as that concept is).

At the end Larry asks: “Are we really willing to trade that kind of comprehensive journalism for narrow podcasts, blinkered text-delivery, 10-word newscasts delivered to cell phones, and the echoed ramblings and rantings of the pajamahedeen?

“As we rebuild traditional media and retrain media workers to flourish on the new frontier, there are some hard questions to be asked about how we’ll preserve, let alone bolster, our capacity to become truly informed.”

Technology and capitalism are great things, but neither in their raw unfettered application invites even the asking of questions about the “goodness” or “badness” of the outcomes they create. As Larry asks, are we inadvertently hurting ourselves as a society without even thinking about it.

But you can’t stop running water, right? Although, you can try to direct it.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 10:06 AM EST
Monday, 18 February 2008
Retiring, or maybe retraining, "the gatekeepers"
Topic: Media

Perhaps the biggest challenge that the online world has brought to the “traditional news media” –and by that I mean mainstream network broadcasters, daily newspapers and major newsweeklies- has been to end their omnipotent role as gatekeepers of information. The handful of senior editors and producers at major media outlets no longer control the information agenda, full stop.

The online revolution has happened so quickly, that this kind of statement seems so self-evidently true as to be the accepted conventional wisdom now. But I think this change is such a radical challenge to the mass media world we’ve lived in for the last 120-130 years, and really such a recent phenomenon, that most of us –especially those of us working in the mainstream media- don’t really “get” what it means. We all say we acknowledge its truth, but we don’t completely comprehend its full implications.

The panel I’m taking part in on Wednesday afternoon at this week’s Canadian Institute’s Media Relations conference in Toronto is centered on the question “How are traditional media outlets adapting to the electronic age?” This is a conference for PR professionals, who are hungry to understand how they should be adapting their pitches to new realities in the newsrooms of the nation.

I’d suggest that, while traditional media are adapting quite a bit, they are probably not adapting anywhere near as quickly as they could or as dramatically. So the more interesting question maybe is “How should traditional media outlets be adapting to the electronic age?” Admittedly, that’s probably beside the point for the audience at the Canadian Institute conference. (That said, maybe the larger message is that PR folks should understand that their jobs, in the electronic age, should be increasingly less “media” relations and more “public” relations. While they probably won’t ever completely exclude media in their communications efforts, PR people will increasingly spend a lot more energy speaking directly to audiences that they ever have.)

Social media thinker and commentator Paul Gillin has written extensively about the way the electronic age has removed the need for mediators and altered how we interact with media and each other. (By the way, Gillin, author most recently of The New Influencers, will be the morning keynote presenter at Éditions Infopresse’s first Toronto Interactive Marketing Conference May 15 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.)


A little while ago I stumbled over one of Gillin’s blog posts from a year ago, titled “Social Media and the Open Enterprise” where he rifled off a host of mind-bending probes on the meaning and implications of the age of unmediated “many-to-many communications”. To give proper credit, this particular post was Gillin’s notes and thoughts arising from a speech by Cluetrain Manifesto co-author David Weinberger. But they really crystallized for me the enormity of the changes that mainstream media are only beginning to contemplate.

Consider some of these things:

• “For the last 100 years, broadcast has dominated our communications and our democracy. Broadcast is now being put in its place. Many-to-many communications will become more important than broadcast.”

• “It’s not about the content. We’re able to get past broadcast because we’re able to escape reality. Broadcast works because it’s constrained by the limitations of reality…You can’t be in two places at the time, so everything has to have its own place. It’s a terrible limitation that the digital world escapes.”

• “In mainstream media, there’s a limited amount of space. So only a few things get to appear and only a few people get to [write]. It’s the same order of information for everyone. Take away those constraints and now everybody can talk. We decide what’s interesting to us.”

• “The authority system is changing. This goes back to the basic assumptions of our culture. The base assumption is that the larger the project, the more control you need. If you want to build something big, you need managers and managers to manage the managers.”

• “Marketing, business and media are all about fake, phony voices. Conversations are open and honest.”

• “Blogs aren’t journalism. They’re blank pieces of paper. The fact that they’ve been judged in the context of journalism is because the media can’t get past itself.”

• “Journalists define their value in terms of their judgment. That has passed into the hands of readers. Since people first began exchanging news articles by e-mail, judgment passed into the hands of users. That’s our front page, what we recommend to each other. The Web is a recommendation engine and it has been since the beginning…”

• “Peer-to-peer is about us making the communication world ours again. Wikipedia is for us. It’s ours. It cares first and foremost about us. Craigslist is ours. People fall in love and get married on Craigslist… YouTube is ours. It enables us to organize content the way that we want to, the way no TV channel ever could. It feels like ours. It exists for us…Google feels like ours. That simple home page feels personal. If marketers saw that home page, they’d want to throw all kinds of ads around it.”

It all rings true.

But how are mainstream media companies to respond to this kind of challenge? Maybe they can’t. Maybe they shouldn’t. Or rather, maybe they shouldn’t worry about completely upending how they do everything. Not that they should do nothing.

I’m sure the reality will be mass and one-to-one “social” media will co-exist side by side. But it is the traditional media that will have to adapt to the new realities, and come to terms with its frankly lowered stature in the information food chain.

On a more concrete level, Michael Hirschorn, the U.S. magazine editor turned TV executive (he’s the head of Viacom’s VH1, where’s he’s unleashed a slew of reality-TV concepts) and media pundit, offered some great advice as to what newspapers in particular should be doing in his December Atlantic Monthly column. And that is, in a nutshell, they should stop being so boring and give readers what they want to read.

The approach to developing the newspaper front page has hardly changed since its modern configuration was invented in the 1880s by Joseph Pulitzer. Hirschorn argues that by what they chose to highlight on page one, and with what placement and headline sizes, newspaper editors told us almost subliminally what was important and what we should think about it all. They decided what we needed to know and what was good for us. And since broadcasters, while over time reaching far bigger audiences than newspapers, inevitably took their cues as to what was important from leading newspapers, in effect editors set the agenda for the whole society. (It’s another debate altogether, but editors and producers would invariably argue that their so-called power and influence was vastly overstated, but it was and is real, if far more constrained than is popularly imagined.)

But with the arrival of the Web and the proliferation of online media options, readers didn’t have to chose what paternalistic editors think is most important and best for them to read anymore. And they aren’t. Which more than anything else is at the root of the problem for newspapers and declining readership I think.

Its clear people are still reading lots-perhaps more than ever. And they are reading lots of what the mainstream press produces-just not what editors continue to select for them as being the most significant.
 
Hirschorn put his theory to the test by comparing the front pages of the New York Times, L.A. Times and Washington Post with their top ten most e-mailed stories each day during a week last September. While hardly scientific, the incidental findings speak volumes. In each case, the editors’ page one choices and top ten reader e-mails overlapped less than 25 per cent of the time. But for him, the biggest surprise was that rather than just American Idol updates and other Hollywood fluff, the reader picks were often substantive serious reports buried well back in the papers’ print editions.

Wrote Hirschorn: “What unites the most–e-mailed list (and granted, it’s hard to draw a single thread through stories about parrots, nuns, and Dumpster-diving foodies) is uniqueness. These stories, as they say in marketing, offer a “value add,” something that’s not available on the vaguely Soviet-seeming syndication-fed news pages of AOL, Yahoo, or Google. The real value now lies in non-commodifiable virtues like deep reporting, strong narrative, distinct point of view, and sharp analysis, which even in the blogger era (or especially in the blogger era) is available only piecemeal.”

Hirschorn insisted he wasn’t calling for “all-Brittney all-the-time,” but rather for a less snobby focus on “great reads,” entertainment value and smarter packaging –and marketing- of so called “important” stories so that they loose their spinach (good for you, but boring) factor. As he put it so well: “non-commodifiable virtues.”

He pointed to Rupert Murdoch as now owning perhaps two of the best U.S. properties that currently understand the need to “sex-up” their content: the New York Post and the recently purchased Wall Street Journal. The Post, Hirschorn, has long been a “guilty pleasure” read in New York cognoscenti circles with its “yeasty mix of political outrage, blood-boiling hypocrisy, misbehaving masters of the universe, and hot babes in some sort of peril.”

Likewise, Hirschorn wrote, the WSJ “has been using its front-page news digest to dispense with commodity news for decades, while employing its valuable real estate to pinpoint trends, elevate key personalities, and, with the lighter middle-column stories, reinforce its brand of wry amusement at the capitalist carnival.”

From all that, Hirschorn’s recipe for mainstream media success in the digital age: “A reimagined broadsheet front page could draw from the Post’s id and The Journal’s superego, doing away with the soggy middle of commodity news in favor of a high-low mix of agenda-setting reportage and analysis, strong storytelling on topics not being covered everywhere else, and saucy, knowing takeouts on people the readership actually cares about.”

In the end, rule #1: tell interesting stories well. Never be dull. Sounds strangely like the advice of the old time newspaper guys who taught us journalism 101 back in J-school.

Take Gillin and Hirschorn together, and I’m still not that worried about the long term for professional journalism. People want to choose their sources of information and they want to have lot of them. But they will choose trusted sources and want to hear interesting stories.

 
In this emerging many-to-many online media era those trusted sources and good stories don’t have to be and come from mainstream media companies. They can be, and often, are found at bobsblog.com. But traditional print and broadcast companies by rights should have a huge advantage when it comes to creating content with those qualities.

Now, can it be as profitable for the giant media conglomerates as it was when there was far less competition for time and attention? That’s the billion-dollar question isn’t it.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 4:46 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 18 February 2008 5:10 PM EST
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Northern Star online
Topic: Media
Returning to the question of “how traditional media outlets are adapting to the electronic age.” That’s the theme of the panel I’m taking part in next at the at The Canadian Institute’s Toronto Media Relations conference Feb. 19 and 20.

We tend to focus on what’s happening in Toronto when these kinds of issues are discussed. I thought I’d light out for the territories (if those outside 416/905 will excuse the expression) and see what’s happening in a perhaps more typical mid-sized Canadian market.

I’ve been hearing for a while that the Sudbury Star, along with many of its sister publications in the formerly named Osprey Media chain (now part of Quebecor, which bought the Ontario chain of 20 mid-market dailies and 30-plus weeklies last year), has been doing some innovative things with social media and online publishing. So I called up my old school buddy David Kilgour, who’s been publisher and general manager of the Star since 2004 to get the low down.

The Star is doing most of the things dailies across the continent are doing now, like writing and posting stories as they break instead of waiting for a set time to post and increasingly including video and picture galleries with written reports, or even instead of them. They’ve even recently begun making content available on mobile phones and other handheld devices, and sending out e-alerts of breaking stories.

But one of the more intriguing efforts has been the UR Sudbury companion site, which essentially gives anyone in the community a forum under the Star’s umbrella to post “news” items or opinions and photos. Community groups have been using it, for instance, to post reports from kids house league sports, and the library and the hospital regularly post items and announcements. And average citizens have been weighing in on things ranging from the weather, courtesy in the malls, city council and anything else that crosses their minds. Registered uses can also “vote” stories up and down the home page hierarchy. Kilgour notes the decision was made early that the UR site would be self policing, and the Star would not take responsibility for monitoring content. (The Star is yet to delegate reporting on council meetings and school boards to “citizens” like some papers in the U.S. have reportedly done in recent months.)

Kilgour describes the UR Sudbury experiment as a mixed success to date. After about six months, there are 1,000 registered users –not crazy numbers, but not bad for a paper with a paid circulation of 18,000 (with a NADbank read yesterday score of 46,000) in a city of about 150,000 people.

He expects the numbers to go up once the site stops asking for detail information when people register later this year. Forget getting people to pay to access content –something the Star tried, unsuccessfully, with things like obituaries- even getting users to give information in exchange for free content they want is a challenge, Kilgour says. But in his view, even server log reports and data on what is being viewed and downloaded can give some pretty useful reader information both for editorial side and for the sales department.

The overall traffic numbers on the site pretty good. And not surprisingly, news attracts visitors.

When the Sudbury Wolves went deep into the Ontario Hockey League playoffs last spring, a special photo site near the end of their run drew 20,000 views within a day.

Likewise, when a baby was abducted at the Sudbury hospital last November site traffic went through the roof. The Star posted continuously updated reports, and was even able to quickly upload the hospital surveillance camera with images of the suspect online before the local CTV station could. It also posted a video report from a 9:30 pm police press conference within minutes of the conference’s end. The incident, which ended happily with the child’s return to its parents in less than 24 hours, saw traffic for the month top a million page views.

In a more typical month, sudburystar.com gets traffic in the 245,000 to 260,000 page view range, with about 65,000 unique visitors. He notes that 75% of those who look at the site also continue to look at the paper.

In a very real sense, as the baby abduction illustrated, Kilgour says the online environment has actually given the Star a leg up against broadcasters in the region. It’s 18-person newsroom –while small compared to a Toronto Star- is actually pretty robust, and can out power the CTV affiliate and area radio newsrooms on local news.
Indeed, Kilgour notes Star and other Ospray research is finding that people are losing “the radio habit” as their go to source for information when breaking stories occur. Instead of having to wait through other programming and advertising, people know they can find what they want when they want it on the Star site, he says.

Conversely, however, he acknowledges that the Star’s smaller twice weekly print competitor, the locally owned The Bargain Hunter Magazine, is now also more of a competitive threat with its web offering. Anyone can compete with anyone online now, he says echoing a comment heard across the world.

And the money?

Kilgour says that about 95% of the Star’s revenue still comes primarily as a result of the print product-. Indeed, he says you’d be hard pressed to find any newspaper that can legitimately say that more than 10% of its revenue is currently coming from online sources.

And while he doesn’t see the revenue streams changing too dramatically in the immediate future, he’s all but certain they eventually will. And that’s why papers like the Star will continue to experiment on the fringes.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 12:11 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 14 February 2008 12:18 PM EST
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
The revolution in news online and off
Topic: Media

Sure we hear a lot about the decline of old style media, but still it’s a pretty rare occasion that a daily newspaper shuts down. Yesterday’s closing of the Halifax Daily News by owners Transcontinental wasn’t necessarily a complete shock. Nor was the word that Transcon will team with Metro International SA and Torstar to roll out Canada’s seventh free morning tab, Metro Halifax, beginning on Thursday. 

But the move does suggest a newspaper industry at least that will be willing to take increasingly radical moves to adapt to changing demographics and tougher competition, offline and on, for readers.

The 27-year-old Daily News had always been a very distant number two to the Chronicle Herald, and was losing serious money –reputedly in the millions- for some time. As Marc-Noel Ouellette, a senior vice-president of Transcontinental's newspaper group, told the Globe and Mail : “Our efforts within the traditional model of newspaper, which is to invest in the newsroom, cut costs and so on, were not enough to offset the losses.”

Transcontinental believes the Metro newspaper model, with its focus younger demographics and very short articles, has a good shot at working well in Halifax. It’s a regional hub and provincial capital with 375,000 people in its metropolitan area. It also is home to eight universities or collages and an estimated 38,000 students. Metro Halifax will have an initial distribution of about 25,000 copies daily, up from the 20,000 circ. of the Daily News.

The staffing numbers also tell the story. There are 92 jobs being eliminated at the Daily News, while the new Metro will be hiring about 20.

And while Transcon is taking a minority stake in the new venture, it is maintaining its other properties in the Halifax region, including four locally published weekly newspapers, a real estate guide, Transaction and its flyer distribution network, all of which apparently make money.


Together, these moves highlight several of the big trends not just in newspapers but the entire media business:
•Ever increasing segmentation and niche market focuses;
•The rise of a free-to-readers content;
•And seriously squeezed resources all round.

I’ve been thinking about these questions lately, in part because I’ve been asked to take part in a panel discussion on “how traditional media outlets are adapting to the electronic age.” This will be at The Canadian Institute’s Toronto Media Relations conference. It's on February 19-20, with this panel slated for early afternoon on the 20th.

The key questions the organizers sent out as thought starters:
• What are the emerging trends for online news?
• How do the online editions of newspapers differ?
• What is their readership?
• How do they develop their stories?
• Is there room for more content?

I’ll do some of my thinking about this out loud here over the next couple of posts.

Some of the trends, such as the complete shuttering of major market dailies, are a bit unnerving to journalists. And so is this one: Outsourcing reporting and editing to India.

AP reported in January that the Miami Herald was contracting out the copy editing and design in a weekly section of Broward County community news and other special advertising sections to a company called Mindworks, based in New Delhi. The report noted that Mindworks would, among other things, be responsible for monitoring reader comments posted to online stories. It was touted as a test, with the Herald unclear on how many if any jobs would be affected.

The AP report also noted that: “Earlier in December, The Sacramento Bee, also owned by the McClatchy Co., said it would outsource some of its advertising production work to India. And in May, news website pasadenanow.com was widely criticized after editors hired two reporters in India to cover the Los Angeles suburb.”

Another trend is the paperless newspaper. There's been a couple pop-up in smaller U.S. markets in recent months.

Exhibit A is likely the Cincinnati Post and its sister paper The Kentucky Post, which were shut down Dec. 31 by owners E. W. Scripps after 126 years of publication. But rather than abandon the Northern Kentucky market, in what may be a first for the U.S. newspaper industry, Scripps replaced the paper with a website: the Kypost.com. (Notably, Scripps hired just one of the 52 Post staff who were let go to be part of the new property).

Cincinnati may not be an important market, but it’s not a barren crossroads either. With a population of 330,000 it is considered the 56th largest U.S. city. The "Greater Cincinnati" coverage area boasts a population of over 2 million.

Now, there is still a daily in Cincinnati, the Enquirer, owned by Gannett, which owing to a 20 year old co-printing arrangement with Scripps had the more lucrative morning and Sunday markets locked up. That lack of maneuverability on when it could publish was a big part of the Post’s problem. It was part of the declining breed of afternoon dailies. A New York Times piece about the closures quotes Scripps as saying there were 614 afternoon dailies in 2006, compared with more than 1,450 in 1950. The combined circulations of the Cincinnati and Kentucky Posts had shrunk to 27,000 in 2006 from a peak of 275,000 in 1961.

Indeed, the Times says fewer than 10 U.S. cities still have two or more daily newspapers.

According a report in the MediaPost's online MediaDailyNews, the new KYPost.com site “will be hosted by WCPO-TV, a Scripps television property in Cincinnati, drawing heavily on the station's video news for online content. The ad-supported site will focus on breaking local news, traffic advisories, sports scores and schedules, and weather in northern Kentucky communities, including user-generated content.”

When you think about it, Canwest made a similar move when it shut down the print version of it’s alt daily targeted at young readers Dose, and kept it alive as dose.ca. Although, Dose never pretended to be an old-line newspaper, and at less than 2 years old hardly had a legacy like the Cincinnati papers.

We can expect to see more online-only properties serving audiences that in the past would have had multiple print options.

The most high profile example is the MinnPost.com, an online only newspaper covering happenings in the St. Paul-Minneapolis twin cities, which launched in November.

It’s not part of an established newspaper company, however. Indeed, it’s been created by the former publisher of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who is dissatisfied with how his former employer, McClatchy, is serving that market, the U.S.’s 14th largest.

In both cases, these sites are focusing mostly although not exclusively on local news and leaving the “comodified” national, international, business and national sports and entertainment to others, which is seen a s a fairly big departure for media outlets with major market, and even region hub markets, pretensions.

MinnPost.com has most of the sections and departments you’d see in a newspaper -Home, Region, World/Nation, Politics, Health/Science, Business, Arts, and Sports, as well as more online media staples like “Posts, Multimedia, Community Voice”. And it pays for content from both professional journalists (many of them laid off in recent years from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) and to a lesser extent the general public. Noted MediaPost’s online MediaDailyNews last fall: “MinnPost.com takes an unusually democratic approach to content creation; whereas other newspapers have tentatively embraced features like reader comments and other kinds of user-generated content, MinnPost.com actively seeks to recruit civilians as paid contributors -including competitors and open skeptics.”

In a sense though, while it is an online creature, MinnPost is also a real newspapers. Readers can download and print a PDF if they like.

The founder of MinnPost.com, Joel Kramer told MediaDailyNews he expects his site, which so far carries only display ads, to break even in about four years. And he predicts that this kind of local niche approach to online media “will only get bigger as regional newspapers contract financially and in terms of editorial content.”

It’s hard to argue with him.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 10:12 AM EST
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
The Writers' strike: What are words worth?
Topic: Media
The Hollywood writers’ strike is now, what, nine weeks old, and I’ve got to say on one level I’ve hardly noticed it.

There’s been a ton of commentary on what the strike “means” and how it will play out. There have been predictions that we would we all tune out the re-runs and spend even more time on Youtube and Facebook and with our Xboxes, Playstations and Nintendos. There’s even been some suggestion that it will be a boon for Canadian made movies and TV programming, as a deal was done with writers here earlier last year and the pipeline, such as it is, of Cancon hasn’t been shut off. (Wait for it.) I liked the headline in Variety early on that noted the movie studios worries that without the talk show forum for chatting up holiday releases, the box office would suffer-which appears to have come to pass. (Not a lot of predictions that we’d read more books.)

For most people, the writers’ strike is so far still an abstract event that’s had little impact on their entertainment consumption routines. Our family’s TV media habits in the past couple of years has devolved primarily to DVDs and reruns of Law & Order and CSI (all of them, which can pretty much fill your viewing day) on A&E, Spike and –for now- History (and with a two year old in the house, I should say it seems like Treehouse is on ALL THE TIME around here). So why would we notice any difference?

Those paying attention, however, should start noticing the difference in the coming days and weeks. Fresh U.S. TV content reserves are getting depleted and reruns will start to dominate the airwaves. High profile awards shows will soon either canceled or stripped back. Case in point, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association confirmed yesterday that it will announce its 65th Golden Globes Awards with an hour-long press conference on January 13 rather than the full blown televised gala. The writers’ guild apparently weren’t prepared to let actors cross picket lines without incident, so there’d be, as the Globe and Mail’s TV columnist John Doyle would have it, no “frocks” on view. Still NBC plans to air the press conference in its entirety.

The programming most immediately impacted by the strike on a day-to-day basis has been the big talk late night shows. And even there I hardly noticed. Personally, I’ve been finding my diet of the kind of stuff the late night talk show hosts do –either themselves, or others like them- online, on my schedule, for some time now anyway.

But, as we all know from the wall-to-wall media coverage, the big guys, Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are back on the air, Letterman with writers owing to special side deal –which he can do because his show is produced by with his own production company-, the others without. For most late night viewers the biggest revelation of the strike probably has been, as Letterman –or one of his writers- put it on his return top ten list: “what, someone actually writes this crap?” So far the writer-less hosts have been getting by on gags about not having writers, and a lot of unscripted talk with guests. How long that stays interesting remains to be seen.

But make no mistake, despite this “phony war” period not unlike the many months in 1939-40 when Germany, Britain and France were at war but firing very few shots at each other, the writers’ strike is important and could in a lot of ways shape the future of media as we know it…or at the very least accelerate or decelerate the trends already under well way.

Beyond the ephemera about of whether the Oscar’s can possibly go on, which big star or politician will dare to cross Jon and Stephen’s picket lines and whether Jay can write jokes for himself, this is ultimately a clash over where the money is going to come from and–more importantly–go as the Internet inevitably becomes the dominant entertainment conduit.

It’s notable that both sides in this engagement are assuming that the Web is going to, in effect, swallow our existing media channels. The debate is about just how much money there will be out there to share, and how quickly it can be tapped to its maximum potential.

In this, I must say it does seem like the media owners are talking out of both sides of their mouths. As this delicious video, created in the strike’s early weeks by writers from The Daily Show underscores, the big entertainment conglomerates are telling shareholders and investors there’s gold in them thar hills, while pleading poverty to writers. (Yes this is pure propaganda, but it’s great stuff… further evidence that you don’t need a Daily Show to get Daily Show style humour. And isn’t it wonderful to see Sumner Redstone’s own words played back on him.)

One of the more provocative arguments about the strike’s import I’ve seen can be found in Todd Merriman’s commentary piece posted on Online Media Daily Dec. 3. Merriman sees the strike as the beginning of the end for TV networks, movie studios and cable companies, which he points out bring less and less to the table as intermediaries between content creators and content producers. “Isn't it inevitable that the television simply becomes akin to an all-you-can eat buffet-pulling content from a million sources, rather than a pre-set menu prepared by the mediocre chefs at NBC Universal, Viacom, and Disney, etc. delivered to your table by those ill-tempered waiters at Time Warner, Cox and Comcast?”

Merriman argues there’s nothing stopping every creator of content from doing a deal with a venture capital fund, rather than a network of film studio, and using the Web and buzz to find an audience. What happens, he asks, when, say, the NFL pulls a Radiohead and decides it can show its content directly and exclusively to football fans via the net and cut out TV networks altogether, thus keeping all and subscription revenues to themselves?  

I do think Merriman’s doomsday predictions are a bit extreme. The Viacoms and Disney’s, or companies like them, are not going to disappear in the new media future. But they will inevitably morph. The simple reason is both content creators and consumers, on the whole, don’t have the inclination to do it all themselves.

Most people like being waited on, even if it is by “ill-tempered waiters”, rather than foraging for every scrap and putting it all together in an appealing menu and setting the table themselves. Most are willing to pay something to have all that done for them.

There are of course exceptions, but likewise most creators, including writers, frankly don’t have the time, energy or disposition to create and maintain their own distribution and marketing channels. They create content, and it takes enough out of most of them to do it. Most are content to potentially make a little or even a lot less than they might if they did all that other stuff themselves too. That said, they do want to get paid more for their efforts and they rightly see an opening to do so. The fact that they can, in this media era, do their own direct to consumers distribution means they have more leverage with the media companies than in the past.

Just how much more leverage remains to be seen. But when the writers guild and big film and TV companies come to an agreement as to what words are worth, we can expect web entertainment to go into overdrive.

Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 1:19 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 8 January 2008 1:32 PM EST
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
The most influential Canadian trade magazines
Topic: Media

As I’ve mentioned in a couple of recent posts, Masthead is endeavoring to select the 20 most influential Canadian magazines of all time… and rank them. And they’d like to include, if possible, trade or b-to-b titles. They’ve invited me onto the selection panel in part to help with that. And I’ve been using this blog to kind of think out loud about it.

Masthead editor Marco Ursi has suggested on the discussion board that Marketing magazine, among others, ought to be considered for the 20 most influential magazines list.

Sure, I’m biased, but I could easily make the case for Marketing, having spent more than 20 years with it. Certainly in my decade plus as the top editorial person, the magazine was either the number one, two or three performer (usually vying with CA Magazine) at the Kenneth R. Wilson Awards recognizing excellence in the Canadian business press. Rare was the year our editorial team didn’t pick up at least three or four gold or silver prizes. And that kind of record was also the case under my immediate predecessors Wayne Gooding and Colin Muncie. In fact Muncie, who was editor from 1972 to 1992 and a senior staffer for the better part of a decade before that, was one of the first recipients of the Canadian Business Press’s Harvey S. Southam lifetime achievement award. Going further back, when the marketing industry’s leading association, the Association of Canadian Advertisers, instituted it’s lifetime achievement award in 1941, its very first recipient was W.A. Lydiatt, who purchased Marketing in 1918 and was owner/publisher/editor until selling it to Maclean Hunter in 1954.

There are all kinds of tales of colourful characters that worked on Marketing over its now near century of publication. My favorite character has to be Bertram Brooker, an adman/ journalist/ novelist/ poet/ actor/ artist and apparently general gadabout in Toronto during the second quarter of the 20th century. But as historian Russell Johnston puts it in his book Selling Themselves: the Emergence of Canadian Advertising, Brooker was “no amateur.” Brooker is credited as being the first Canadian to put on an exhibit of abstract art in Toronto. He was the winner of the first Governer General’s prize for fiction in 1937 with his novel Think of the Earth. And between stints working as a copywriter at a number of Toronto ad agencies in the 1920s and 30s, he also worked as a writer for the Globe and for Marketing during this era, acting as publisher from 1924 to 1926. He is thought to have arranged for Group of Seven member, and friend, Frank Johnston to redesign the magazine’s masthead in late 1920s.

Still, I’d argue any trade publication worth its salt could boast of staffers or contributors with a similar intimate history with its target readership. Marketing’s advantage on that front is it has had a relatively large staff throughout a longstanding existence, and the fact that it does cover a world that overlaps the one we magazine people work in.

And there’s the rub on which trade titles had the most influence: its almost like you’re picking which business sectors are more important by selecting any particular journal as being more influential overall. And on many levels you really can only judge a book if you understand and know the sector intimately.

I’d argue Masthead is a great example of a trade title that does an exemplary job of serving its readers’ needs and having a wide influence on a relatively tight budget. But then, it is also the trade title for my business, so I pay a lot of attention to it. But, we’ve got to be honest with ourselves here: the magazine industry, while important to us, isn’t the most important or influential segment of the Canadian print media sector let alone the entire Canadian economy. (I’d also argue, maybe on a technicality, that as good and influential as Masthead is, it would be bad form to allow itself to be included on its own list.)

Similarly, I’ve always admired the good job Quill & Quire does, and it for sure has always had a disproportionately huge footprint in the culture/book industry. But there again, it’s something closer to my heart than, say, the trucking industry. (And I say that with no disrespect to Today's Trucking, which is also a consistent award winner at the KRWs, and whose long time editorial director Rolf Lockwood was also a Harvey Southam lifetime achievement award winner in 2003.)

By the standard of true influence being linked to the industry a magazine serves, The Northern Miner, around since 1915, should be a big contender, although I honestly know little about it. Oilweek is another quality title in a major economic sector for this country. So is Pulp and Paper Canada. An Investment Executive or Advisor’sEdge clearly have clout in the big money area (and I’d give Advisor’sEdge extra marks for setting some new high standards in Canadian trade magazine art direction in its early years in the 1990s). Canadian Lawyer, Lawyers Weekly and relative newcomer Lexpert –not to mention the bar association’s own book, National- are all very well done and have significant clout in an important segment of society. Medical Post has a long record of award winning journalism in a sector that is literally life and death for Canadians. Any one of them is more important and has more influence with readers with more influence than, say, a Marketing magazine, Masthead or Quill & Quire.

Other trade titles that I think have been very good strong in recent years, based largely but not exclusively on their KRW performances, include:

Azure in design, architecture and art (so good, you don’t even think of it as a trade title).

CA Magazine. Yes accountants deserve a good read too, and they get it. And no one has had a better run at the KRWs for the past decade.

Environmental Solid Waste & Recycling. Now here’s an important sector these days, and these folks, like so many good trade, usually set the agenda for the daily press and broadcasters.

OHS Canada Magazine. Ditto to the above two titles.

Salon, largely on the strength of its consistently wonderful art direction.

But, as I’ve said, I can’t say any one of the 18 titles I've mentioned here so far is any more influential than another beyond their immediate audiences.

If you can have only one trade mag on the influence list –and I think there should be at least one– you probably can’t go wrong with Canadian Grocer. It wasn’t necessarily the first or best Canadian b-to-b magazine in history, but it was the first one John B. Maclean started in 1887, when he was a 24 year old newspaper reporter at the Toronto Mail, and one that became the keystone to his publishing empire, which dominated the trade and later consumer industry until it was swallowed by Rogers in 1994 (and really continues, under its new identity and name, to be the Canadian magazine industry’s 900 pound gorilla).

It helps that the grocery industry is an evergreen sector (no matter how poor economic conditions might get, people still gotta eat, right) that remains largely domestically controlled. (As an aside, it was always somewhat amusing and bemusing to me at Marketing magazine that while branded packaged goods companies, generally near the top of the food chain in our reader universe, were among the toughest to get any kind of consistent comment from by our staff, these companies would bend over backwards to speak to Grocer. In Grocer’s world, after all, they are the suppliers not the big fish.)

But the magazine in and of itself has remained relevant, and very profitable, over the decades. Its editors and publishers have always done their best to get close to their readers, find out what they need and want, and deliver it.

Two little anecdotes relating to Grocer from Maclean Hunter at One Hundred, a special perfect-bound magazine issued to all company staff by MH during the company’s 1987 centennial.

First, it describes B.T. (Burt) Huston –who stepped down as Grocer editor in 1954 after 46 years with MH– as a “classic editor” in terms of service to and leadership in his field. “His stature was so much that 200 leaders of the food industry gathered from across the country to honour him at a testimonial dinner in 1949. At the time no other business-press editor in Canada had ever received such a distinction.”

Second, it quotes George Condon, the Grocer publisher/editor in 1987 (and for several decades... and like Huston, an eventual inductee into The Food Industry Association of Canada’s hall of fame), as saying: “I see myself about 95% in the food industry and 5% in the publishing industry.” And that view of being “of” the industry you serve rather than apart from it is one Condon said was shared by J. B. Maclean. “There was no question that he was totally devoted to the grocery industry when he launched Canadian Grocer. He already had a reputation of being a commodities expert in North America.”

That degree of passion about and immersion in the industry one covers is always a telling attitude in a B-to-B editor. Sideline observers and clock-watching hacks are seldom influential players in the trade space. Those who are passionate and dig in can be. And that usually seperates the good magazine from the influential magazine.


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 9:37 PM EST
Updated: Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:30 PM EST
Friday, 30 November 2007
Big news broadcasters online: glass half full or half empty
Topic: Media
One of the final segments of the nextMedia: Monetizing Digital Media conference this week was a fairly freewheeling panel addressing what mainstream broadcasters are doing to push their news content through online channels and how they are adapting to he challenges of consumer generated content and so called “citizen journalism.”

Taking part were, Mark Lukasiewicz, vice president NBC News, Digital Media, Jonathan Dube, director of digital programming, CBC News, and Leonard Brody, CEO, Now Public, one of those online citizen news sources that moderator Mathew Ingram, The Globe & Mail tech writer, noted are giving the other two such a hard time these days.

This video clip highlights how major Canadian broadcasters are “adapting” versus their U.S. counterparts.

Depending on who’s talking, there’s been great progress, or “embarrassing short sighed-ness.”



Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 8:27 AM EST
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
The greatest Canadian magazines 2: Old school edition
Topic: Media

More on the Masthead 20 most influential Canadian magazines of all time exercise I posted on a few days ago.

One of the big challenges with a list like this is that it tends to be dominated by the living memory of the current generation. It usually ends up being the top players from mostly last 20 or 30 years, maybe 40. Which is fine because these thing are really about the collective memory of us now, not a true history.

Still the completest in me wanted to take a look further back for candidate magazines that I either dimly remember, have forgotten about or never even knew about.  To do this I’ve returned to my J-school notes and texts-most notably Paul Rutherford’s 1978 history The Making of Canadian Media. I’ve also scanned and the Canadian Encyclopedia online (whose entries on magazines appear to date from 1986, happily the year I entered the industry), and revisited sections of Selling Themselves: The Emergence of Canadian Advertising,
Russell Johnston’s excellent 2000 book looking at the rise of modern marketing advertising here, and the mass media industries with it, from about 1890 to the early 1930s.

Some cool stories here, although just how influential they all were is an open question.

• The Nova Scotia Magazine: Don’t know much about it, or how influential really, but I do know it is credited as the first Canadian magazine. This from the Canadian Encyclopedia: “The first Canadian magazine, edited by the Rev William Cochran and printed by John Howe, father of reformer Joseph HOWE, was The Nova Scotia Magazine and Comprehensive Review of Literature, Politics, and News. It commenced publication in 1789, lasted 3 years, and was concerned more with British than colonial affairs.”

Le Magasin de Québec: Also on this topic of first Canadian magazines, the CE states: “The bilingual Le Magasin de Québec was established by Samuel Neilson in Lower Canada's capital and published from 1792 to 1794. It marked the first attempt at drawing the 2 cultures together through a printed medium.”

Also in CE under the topic of French Magazines:
“Early magazines aimed not simply to inform their readers but to instruct them and entertain them. This vision guided Samuel Neilson when he launched The Quebec Magazine/Le magasin de Québec (1792-94), a 64-page bilingual monthly, containing excerpts from European and American publications, and illustrated by what may have been the first engravings ever published in a magazine.”

Semeur canadien: The small magazine of ideas challenging a conservative establishment in Quebec didn’t start with Cite Libre. This title took on the Catholic church in mid-19th century Quebec, a foe that makes Duplessis look like a pussycat.

Says the Canadian Encyclopedia: “At this time [mid-1800s] magazines began a battle which was to prove decisive for their future, against the Roman Catholic Church, all-powerful in Québec in the 19th century. One of the first major conflicts occurred in 1851 when Narcisse Cyr revealed abuses committed by church officials in Semeur canadien, a magazine declared to be heretical and dangerous, whose readers were threatened with excommunication by the archbishop of Montréal. The battle escalated in 1864 when Pope Pius IX published his Syllabus, banning certain books. Monseigneur Ignace BOURGET then threw himself into a crusade aimed at preventing the appearance of any new publications in Québec. The Index included about 20 000 titles and more than 8000 authors, causing the eventual disappearance of a number of publications, including Le Canada (1889-1909), which had denounced the Catholic school system and abuses of authority committed by the church. It quickly found its place in The Index and sales plummeted from more than $350 a month to a bare $25 in Dec 1893.”


Whew. The Golden Compas is getting off easy.

Canadian Illustrated News: Founded by the great grandfather of my J-school dean Peter Deberats –as he told us many, many times-, this Montreal-based title is considered a world pioneer in the use of photoengraving.

The Canadian Encyclopedia: “The technique of photoengraving was pioneered in Canada and used first in the immensely successful Canadian Illustrated News, which began operations in 1869 and gained a large following principally because of its vivid portrayal of scenery and its stirring images of the NORTH-WEST REBELLION. Its French counterpart was the technically more accomplished, but generally less commercially successful, L'Opinion publique illustré.”

Prairie Farmer or Family Herald or both as a joint entry:
In our largely urban modern Canada, we can’t conceive of the size or clout of the farm community in this country before 1950. Or the farm publishing sector. From about 1890s to the 1930s there was an entire genre of agriculture publishing that rivaled the trade and still nascient consumer magazine segments in size and scope. There were lots of specialized titles, but the biggest were a mix of lifestyle and business, which matched the reality of farm life. In 1921, seven of the top 10 Canadian magazines tiles by circulation were farm related (this from a chart in Russell Johnston’s Selling Themselves, based on from compiled in Lydiatt’s book [Lydiatt was by then the owner of Marketing]).

Prairie Farmer, a weekly owned by the Winnipeg Free Press, was one of the best know. It was kind of a version of Maclean’s combined with trade mag for the western farm set, had a circulation of almost 150,000 in the 1920s. It’s eastern counterpart, the Family Herald, owned by the Montreal Star, boasted an even larger circulation of 217,000 in the same era. These publications, in the words of Paul Rutherford (p.46), featured “an impressive compilation of short reports on farm affairs, a news summary, and assorted delights for a family audience.”
 
Canadian: The early 20th century version, of which I knew next to nothing until seeing several references to it in Russell Johnston’s Selling Themselves (from which almost all of the following is culled).

Apparently Canadian was an attempt to emulate Harper’s “belle letters” highbrow mag model developed in 1860s south of the border. It was founded in 1893 by Ontario Publishing company, a Toronto book publisher, and was considered a “modest success” until the 1930s. While it never cracked the top 50 in circulation in Canada, it had a loyal elite readership. It peaked in 1919 with a 17,250 monthly circ. A 1924 redesign, which attempted to make it more like the rising “consumer” titles never quite took, and in fact appears to have only ailienated its core readers and hastened its demise.

Canadian Courier: Again, this is drawn from Russell Johnston who describes Canadian Courier an outright copy of the more street-wise populist U.S. general interest “consumer” magazines like Munsey’s, McClure’s, the Saturday Evening Post etc. flooding into Canada after 1890. It was launched in 1906 by former Canadian editor John A Cooper and by 1919 boasted a 45,000 circulation every two weeks.

Courier was reputedly much more ad friendly than most Canadian titles of the era. Aside from quality paper, larger format and lots of illustration and colour, Courier also adopted the then radical model from the U.S. of actually integrating ads and editorial onto the same page, often in editorial departments that paralleled emerging consumer markets. In 1917, the editor even ran a list of national advertisers and recommended readers patronize them. It was also one of the first Canadian magazines to adopt a flow plan of having open pages up front with turns to the back, stacked with partial ads, that lead readers through the entire book.

Canadian Courier’s arrival may well mark the moment in the magazine business here when the shift from the 19th century almost exclusive focus on readers to a greater attention (although, note, not total attention) to advertiser needs and wants began. It’s a model that’s basically been a given in the business for a century now.

Courier would eventually lose ground in the 1920s to an another magazine that slavishly borrowed American formulas and Canadianized them, Maclean’s.

Everywoman’s World: Russell Johnston suggests this was probably Canada’s first true “women’s consumer” magazine as we’ve come to know them.

Everywoman’s World was founded in 1913 by Continental Publishing Company. It was the brainchild of Isidor Simonski, who he’d analyzed the results of a campaign to sell a floured essence cooking product to women through existing general interest “consumer” magazines found that no magazine could deliver women exclusively-in fact only boast more than a 50% female readership. So, he figured why not create one that spoke only to women.

It was an almost instant hit. By 1921, Everywoman’s World had the highest per issue circulation of any Canadan magazine with 106,167 (and was apparently the first Canadian title to breach the 100,000 threshold).

La Revue populaire and/or La Revue moderne: From the Canadian Encyclopedia: “Growing urban concentration and more widespread education meant that traditional magazines no longer met the needs of their readers, who were increasingly drawn from the masses. These readers wanted popularization, variety and light entertainment, as found in American and French magazines. And so La Revue populaire was born (1907-63), whose circulation rose in less than 50 years from 5000 to more than 125 000. Aimed at the whole family, it published short stories, a family column, various pieces of information and, during WWI, news from the Front. But the postwar period was fatal both for it and the austere Canada français (1918-46): faced with ever more competitors, magazines fought for survival by attracting readers with a tempting layout, winning advertisers and, above all, by specializing. La Revue populaire tried to attract a female readership, but they remained faithful to La Revue moderne (1918-1960), one of the first magazines to be run by a woman (Madeleine Huguenin). Very visual, and financed as much by advertising as by sales, this magazine caught the attention of Maclean Hunter Ltd. In October 1960, La Revue moderne merged with a French version of CHATELAINE. Five months later, Châtelaine printed 125 000 copies; the age of modern magazines had definitely come to French Canada.”

Weekend Magazine (or maybe Canadian or Canadian Weekend): I dimly remember this title from my toddler days, and moreso when it was merged with its rival as Canadian Weekend in the 70s and 80s (an era in which I recall some Roy MacGregor bylines on hockey stories). But in their mid 20th century heyday (say 1925-1965), the rotogravure weekend supplements distributed in major daily newspapers were the country’s mostly widely read magazines. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, the combined 2.9 million circulation of Weekend Magazine and rival Star Weekly in 1952 topped the combined circ. of the four leading stand alone magazines (presumably Time, Reader’s Digest, Maclean’s and Chatelaine) by 300,000.

Star Weekly
, owned, of course, by the Toronto Star and dating from the teens, developed a huge advantage in the late 1940s when the King government banned the import of U.S. pulp magazines and comic books, but left exempt comics distributed with newspapers. Star Weekly was left as exclusive distributor of some of the most popular U.S. comics (call it the forerunner of the Canwest/CTV business model of getting government protection for your infrastructure, but filling it with popular American content and a smidgen of Cancon).

In reaction, the Montreal Star and Montreal Standard newspapers merged their weekend magazines, both also founded at the beginning of the 20th century, into Weekend Magazine in 1951. By the early 1960s Weekend was “the most popular advertising vehicle in the nation” a circulation over 2 million through its carriage in 41 newspapers. As Jack Granatstein’s Canadian Encylcopedia entry puts it, Weekend “offered high-quality colour reproduction to advertisers, good photographs, feature stories and recipes to readers, and a profit-making supplement that boosted circulation for the newspaper publishers.”  A market like that abhors a vacum. So in 1966, the Star combined with the Southam chain to create The Canadian, which resulted in a decade-plus long competition that saw some of the country’s best writers and editors producing excellent magazine journalism.

But both titles were soon fighting a loosing battle. The rise of colour TV in the 60s lead to the diminishing clout of the rotogravures (and of all general interest titles). Weekend merged with Canadian in 1979, morphed into Today in 1980 and then shut down in 1982.

(BTW, in the U.S., Parade magazine is the leading surviving rotogravure. Distributed in 400 newspapers, Parade currently claims to be the country’s most widely read magazine with a circulation of 32 million and a readership of 71 million.)


Homemakers: It’s not that long ago, but Homemakers was ground breaking in the 1960s and 1970s for its controlled circulation model –now the dominant form for most trade titles- also applied to brother title Quest magazine. This from the Canadian Enclyclopedia, again circa 1986: The term "general-interest magazine" has little relevance in the contemporary market. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the increasing prominence of controlled-circulation magazines. The largest publisher of such magazines is COMAC, which was founded in 1966 and has 8 magazines including Homemaker's / Madame à foyer, Quest (which folded in late 1984) and Western Living. In late 1983 a rival company launched the largest circulation Canadian magazine, Recipes Only, which has a controlled circulation of 2 million readers and is a prime example of the current trend toward publishing for a narrow and specific market. All these magazines endorse doctrines of affluence and have a clear middle- and upper-middle-class consumer bias. They reflect a glistening internationalism rather than a parochial nationalism and, in that sense, are a mirror of contemporary Canadian middle-class aspirations.”

Those last two sentences sums up the big trends in the industry, and culture, for the last 30 years I’d say, perhaps sadly.

And one last pitch from the misty past:

The Eye Opener: I’ve heard myths about this title, and I’m sure it never had the kind of influence Masthead is looking to celebrate.  Or maybe it does. Either way, Bob Edward’s Calgary Eye Opener, which published apparently rather intermittently from 1902 to 1922, sounds like a lot of fun, and just as dangerous as say Frank.

This from Rutherford (p. 44):  “…This great ‘moral weekly’ was the satirical voice of an unregenerate lowbrow. Bob Edwards was a Scottish-born adventurer who, after assorted travel, settled down to a life of intermittent alcoholism and journalism in Alberta. His eight-page weekly appeared irregularly, depending on his sobriety, sold for five cents on the streets, and eventually on the train of the Canadian Pacific Railway. By 1911, the Eye Opener enjoyed a circulation of some 26,000 copies in Calgary and throughout the prairies, its fame reaching into Great Britain and the United States. What so charmed readers was the Eye Opener’s compilation of news, gossip, scandal, speculation, fantasy, wit, homilies and fun–all enthused with a love of the ordinary person. Edwards used his weekly to survey the low life of the horse races, prize fights, drinking spots, and the like; to ridicule the pretentions of high society, the ‘holier-than-thou’ attitudes of moralists, the greed of big business, the stupidity and corruption of politicians; to champion women’s rights, minimum wage laws, even briefly prohibition. ..The Eye Opener had no particular impact, even if its satire irritated the high and mighty (once, Lord Strathcona of CPR fame, almost sued for libel [as did Alberta premier A.L. Sifton]). The point is the weekly’s very existence spoke well of a Canada already too notorious for its straight-laced morality and pomposity.”


The Canadian Encylcopedia also has a short funny entry on Edwards.

Variations on the Eye Opener have been recreated over the decades (the CBC Calgary’s morning drive show has adapted the moniker, as has a Ryerson U student paper, amoung others).


Posted by sutter or mckenzie at 6:10 PM EST
Updated: Thursday, 29 November 2007 7:45 AM EST

Newer | Latest | Older