Newsweek to go all digital in 2013
“It is important that we underscore what this digital transition means and, as importantly, what it does not. We are transitioning Newsweek, not saying goodbye to it. We remain committed to Newsweek and to the journalism that it represents. This decision is not about the quality of the brand or the journalism—that is as powerful as ever. It is about the challenging economics of print publishing and distribution.”
–Tina Brown, Newsweek Editor
This one feels like a real sea (or should that be “e”?) change.
Newsweek, published since 1933, will continue to be published in 2013…but not in paper.
I think this puts pressure on Time.
Newsweek is well-known**, as is Time.
There has been this sense that those two magazines are in some way preserving traditional journalism by continuing to distribute on a dried and pressed matte of randomly interwoven wood fibers*. 
By stopping physical distribution with the December 31, 2012 issue, Newsweek is saying that you don’t need to be paper journalism to be proper journalism. 
I think Tina Brown does an excellent job of explaining it in this
in The Daily Beast.
The owner of Newsweek has actually been The Newsweek Daily Beast Company since late 2010.
I have to say this feels like a growing up, a maturing…like ending the paper edition is equivalent to putting away your childhood security blanket and embracing the future.
It still has to work; it has to be shown that a viable business model for good journalism can be fully digital. Brown says:
“At the same time, our business has been increasingly affected by the challenging print advertising environment, while Newsweek’s online and e-reader content has built a rapidly growing audience through the Apple, Kindle, Zinio and Nook stores as well as on The Daily Beast. Tablet-use has grown rapidly among our readers and with it the opportunity to sustain editorial excellence through swift, easy digital distribution—a superb global platform for our award-winning journalism. By year’s end, tablet users in the United States alone are expected to exceed 70 million, up from 13 million just two years ago.”
That’s where the money is…tablet distribution. People may not want to pay for much on the internet, but they’ll pay to subscribe to things on their tablets. They’ll do automatic renewal…you don’t need to put five fly-away subscription cards in every issue, and start wrapping the magazine in brightly colored, doom-saying warnings that “THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST ISSUE!”
Just like you could with paper, you can sell advertising and have subscribers both.
Kudos to Tina Brown for leading the change in distribution while respecting journalistic traditions.
What do you think? Does this surprise you, or are you surprised it hadn’t happened already? Does Time soldier on, or make a similar switch? Should The Daily Beast have just dropped Newsweek name? Feel free to let me and my readers know by commenting on this post.
*I was amused by the Wikipedia description of paper, and have adapted a small part of it here
**I had originally used the term “highly-respected” for Newsweek and Time. A reader, jh, challenged the use of that term. You can see our discussion of it in the comments, but I took the suggestion and have edited the post to say “well-known”. My intent here was to suggest that Newsweek and Time might be seen as similar, and that Time might be influenced by a decision Newsweek made
This post by Bufo Calvin originally appeared in the I Love My Kindle blog.
October 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
“Newsweek is highly-respected” I beg to differ, I use to read this pub weekly back in the 90′s and quit because of its liberal bias on every news article. They went digital because they have been loosing readers for years and this is the only way they can make money. So if you can offer some proof that “Newsweek is highly-respected” I would be more then willing to read it.
October 18, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
Thanks for writing, jh!
Oh, a differ begger, eh?
What would you accept as a measure of respect? Once I have that parameter, we can see if we agree on measures of respect, and I can do some research.
Things can be both respected and detested, of course…I would guess that’s the norm for anything that is well-known.
Is there a magazine you respect which has been gaining readers for its print edition in the past few years? Let’s put a minimum of, say, 500,000 circulation to make it more mainstream. My guess is that losing readers has been the trend for traditionally published newsstand news magazines generally.
I appreciate you expressing this. I know that some people assign a political bias to Newsweek they don’t like…again, not uncommon for news sources.
October 18, 2012 at 5:11 pm
You posted highly respected so you already have a parameter in mind or you would not have posted it.
You need to research why you think it is highly respected?
If it was highly-respected it would still be in print.
October 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Thanks for writing, jh!
Thanks for the parameter! Since it’s still in print until 2013, by your definition, it’s highly-respected.
I would presume, then, that any publication without a print edition is not highly-respected?
Let me suggest a few possible measures for respect for a news source:
* Subscriptions: As was your case, I would think people would tend to cancel subscriptions to publications they did not respect. Respect and agreement are two different things, of course. I get my news from a variety of sources, some of which have apparent biases that are different from my beliefs. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, there are more than a million and a half subscribers to Newsweek: http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/magtitlesearch.asp. That suggests to me that at least some people highly respect it (I know, I may regret having used that term, since it’s imprecise). It’s possible that none of them do, but that would be an interesting choice given the subscription fees. I would say Newsweek passes this test for me
* Awards: I took a quick look, and didn’t see any recent journalism awards for Newsweek. I also looked at some other publications I would consider to be well-known (see, I used more “weasel words”)
, such as the National Review, and didn’t see those right away either. I would say at this point, Newsweek would fail this test for me
* Citations: I would consider other publications (and individuals) linking to a publications articles a sign of respect. I don’t see it coming up quickly in Google searches (which, as you probably know, uses an algorithm based in part on linking). I did find it used as an example for linking http://www.indiana.edu/~libugls/Publications/electronic_mla.html, but that doesn’t show that it is being used. I would say that Newsweek has not passed this test for me
* Longevity: Newsweek began publication in 1933, and is not planning to stop publication in the near future (although they will transition to digital only, I don’t consider that only print publications can be respected)
Anecdotal: This was probably an influence on me. I’m a former brick-and-mortar bookstore manager, and Time and Newsweek were two sources that would be cited to me by customers (and other people I knew).
Based on this quick review, although I think there is evidence, I’ll go ahead and modify the post. I’ll direct people to your comment, so they can see both of our comments.
I appreciate you calling me on it. I’m usually pretty careful to be factual, although I think opinion is appropriate in a blog like this when labeled as such. “Highly-respected” is, I think, somewhat subjective. I know that some people have specifically criticized Newsweek, as has happened with (to use a different medium) CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews. I like to see many different sources, personally, and I like it when an organization’s virtually inevitable prejudices (in my opinion) are apparent.
October 18, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Wow! since I work for a living I will be back and read your novel later this evening
October 18, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Thanks for writing, jh!
Sounds good! I work for a living as well.
October 19, 2012 at 1:31 am |
I meant to say I did not have time to spend on the internet reading a long post on company time. You obviously don’t have that restriction.
My parameter was not that if it is in print it is respected.
Like I said Newsweek was one of my favorite magazines in the 90′s I was very disappointed the way it went content wise. When I read “respected” I guess I just wanted to comment. Glad you edited post.
October 19, 2012 at 2:11 am
Thanks for writing, jh!
Yes, I assumed that’s what you meant. I was responding to that. I work quite a bit more than forty hours a week, usually. It seems a bit unusual that a company would not allow someone to use the internet on their own equipment during a break, but that’s possible. I do tend to write quickly, so the amount of time I spent on it might have been misleading.
The reason I was joking about you saying the parameter was that if it was in print it was expected was that you said this:
“If it was highly-respected it would still be in print.”
My point was that, since it is in print until 2013, your statement, through the reflexive property, says that it is highly-respected.
One could read it and say, “If it was highly-respected it would still be in print…since it is still in print, it is therefore highly-respected.” Sorry that humor didn’t play…always a risk.
It will continue to be published after 2012, but it will not be in print (meaning in a physical edition).
I completely understand your passionate response to what I think you saw as an undeserved compliment for something which had disappointed you with a change in editorial policy. My use of the term was probably too subjective for a declarative statement like that, and I appreciate you pointing that out.
I hope that if you see something that moves you that you’ll write again. My favorite thing is when someone comments to disagree with me respectfully, and you have certainly contributed to the blog today.
October 18, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
Wow! I knew this would happen eventually, but I didn’t expect it so soon. It seems pretty obvious that periodical print media is having a hard time, but I can’t help but wonder if this won’t hurt Newsweek in the long run. There will be a large number of their non-tablet-owning readership who will feel abandoned. What do you think? Will the money they save abandoning printing keep them afloat long enough to build a new subscriber base and get over the resentment of their “abandoned” base.
October 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
Thanks for writing, D.!
The print advertising pool has been shrinking considerably, from what I know. Subscribers are one source of income, but advertising is another really important source. Fewer subscribers would make it harder to command the same advertising fees, but print and digital advertising are likely separate pools.
When you look at desirable demographics for advertisers, how will that match up to print only users?
I think many people will have the same response you did; they expected it, but not yet.
October 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm
You know I hadn’t thought of it from that point of view, ie, since the advertisers are the main source of revenue, the advertisers would be what they think of first. That is going straight to the bottom line. And maybe that is the ultimate problem, because I believe that attitude for a periodical is a slow death spiral. After all, the advertisers only pay premium prices if you have a large following. By focusing on your advertisers before your customers, you begin a slow, declining spiral (lose customers, lose advertisers, and so on).
Newsweek is certainly going to enrage a certain number of its loyal base, and that has to be bad for them. If they don’t make that up right away, the advertisers (who aren’t usually motivated by loyalty) will melt away.
The article states: “Currently, 39 percent of Americans say they get their news from an online source, according to a Pew Research Center study released last month. In our judgment, we have reached a tipping point at which we can most efficiently and effectively reach our readers in all-digital format.”
I read this (admittedly somewhat cynically) as “we’re willing to abandon 61% of our potential readership.” Yikes!!! For those not ready to go the tablet route, reading this article is like reading “We don’t care for you since you’re not on the leading edge.”
I expect that this will hurt Newsweek, which will in turn hurt digital transformations because some people will blame the digital market for what is actually Newsweek’s poor way of handling this.
October 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Thanks for writing, D.!
Your fourth paragraph presumes that 100% of those who get news are potential subscribers. There may be many people who get news, but wouldn’t subscribe to a paper or digital magazine.
It will be interesting to see what happens. My guess is this is a positive: they are getting a lot of publicity out of it, for one thing.
If you are looking for your news, do you want it to be from a cutting edge source, or one that is preserving the “olds” versus the “news”?
No question, they will probably lose some customers. You lose some people regardless of what you do. You could stand on a street corner and hand out twenty dollar bills, and some people would avoid you forever after that because they thought you were up to something.
October 18, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
I currently subscribe to both Newsweek and Time, and can also read both on my tablet, but seldom do. I’m fully tablet-friendly and use it a lot, but I guess I haven’t transitioned completely because I am still willing to pay a premium for the physical magazines. So with Newsweek switching to tablet-only, I don’t see myself continuing to subscribe. Not only has the quality of their content dropped, but there is just so much free tablet content available elsewhere that I think they’ll have a tough ride ahead.
Hopefully, Time won’t follow.
October 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
Newsweek, like Time, stopped being respected long ago, when they stopped “reporting” the news and started “crafting” the news to fit the political and social beliefs of whichever editors and/or publishers were in charge. Instead of accurate and objective reporting we now get “reporting” that is nothing more than an attempt to influence public opinion and/or promote someone’s agenda. Broadcast and cable news networks are guilty of this too; see CBS News and MSNBC.
But more to your point Bufo, the shift away from traditional ink and paper publishing to electronic publishing is inevitable, and tablets are the best avenue for publishers thus far. The cost of publishing electronically has got to be far less than hard copies, and today’s technology makes it quite easy to get content into the readers hands via tablet. Yes, we old-timers will have to get used to a new format, but electronic publishing is without doubt the present and future of publishing. Undoubtedly more will follow Newsweek’s move.
October 18, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
Thanks for writing, Angelo!
When saying “respected” (which I’ve now changed, and explained the change in the post), I wasn’t trying to suggest validity…I was trying to suggest perception.
News sources have never been unbiased, in my opinion (see William Randolph Hearst, for one…oh, and Herodotus.
Although the latter legendarily made an effort to report the “truth”, you can certainly see the historian trying to influence opinion).
I think it’s essentially mythology that there was a golden age of journalism when it was reported in an unbiased manner with truth being the only guideline, and that’s been lost somehow.
The answer for me has always been to aware of a news source’s biases, not to presume they don’t have them.
Much of the expense of publishing doesn’t have to do with production and transport, as I understand it, but it does have an influence, and an increasing one. As a general rule of thumb, things based on natural resources (such as paper and the gas necessary to transport magazines) gets more expensive, and technology gets less expensive.
October 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
Oh well, I’m sure that there will still be back issues in the doctor’s waiting room for years to come;)
October 19, 2012 at 12:25 am |
Thanks for writing, Lady!
Gee, what will patients read in the doctor’s waiting room fifty years from now? Oh yeah, the exact same back issues they are reading today…they never throw those things out.
October 19, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
Maybe they’ll be history texts for the post apocalyptic citizens who survive whatever great disasters might await? [Or appear in the background of a future Captain Piccard's quarters just in case we actually figure it all out before it's too late.]
October 20, 2012 at 12:39 am
Thanks for writing, Lady!
Today’s magazines aren’t made of very hardy stuff…I’m not sure they’ll be around much in the 24th Century. Due to production quality differences, I think a 19th Century hardback, like Moby Dick, stands a better chance.
October 19, 2012 at 2:20 am |
For the last couple of years I have made it SOP to ask anyone I see reading a p-book, “Excuse me, is that a wooden book”? It gets mixed but often amusing reactions.
October 19, 2012 at 2:34 am |
Thanks for writing, Brian!
My emotional reaction to someone reading a paperbook is now to feel sorry for them, which seems bizarre to me.
You might enjoy this one:
http://ilmk.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/if-e-books-were-first/
October 23, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
LOL!
Which favors the book industry eventually transitioning to PODlishing.
==========
It’s cruel, but I think things look grim for Newsweek. (The competition from the upstart “The Week” probably hurt it too.) What success has US News & World Report had after it made the same switch four (?) years ago? My WAG: not much. And Newsweek has lots of entrenched competition online in Huffington Post, Slate, Salon, NYT, — even USNWR!
If only the web had been set up with a built-in, capable micro-payments system!
January 8, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
I am a long-time subscriber of Newsweek. I have been in turmoil since the all-digitial announcement. One of my concerns is whether or not there will be the ability from any (all) platforms to archive each issue on personal hardware (SD card, external hard-drive, etc) for future reference. I have in my possession every issue since late 1993, and I find myself pulling out old issues several times per year.
I am also concerned about the presentation – I do not want to read something that is not presented like a print magazine with pages. I am not interested in “browsing” a website…
As far as content and bias over the years, I do have to admit I have seen a rise in the bias – and yes, with a lean toward liberal ideas. I am not happy about that either, but have been unable to find a substitute (print) magazine that I can handle. For instance, TIME has too much advertising and many of the pages have strange layouts that make them hard to read.
I am still trying to figure out what to do about the digital Newsweek. Fortunately, my current subscription is good until March, so I have some time to peruse it online. I am having trouble determining the ability to save issues – does anyone know if/how this works?
THANKS!
January 9, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
Thanks for writing, Colette!
You can get Newsweek through Zinio…and they back up and store all of your back issues for you.
http://www.zinio.com/
I have a subscription with them, and have been pleased with their access. The magazines do typically appear just as they would in print…but of course, that depends on the publisher. When there is no print edition, will they do full page ads, for example? Perhaps.
Ifyou want to store the issues yourself, that’s a bit more complex, and no more reliable, I think. Generally, digital files are keyed to a specific device. When you back up the file yourself, it won’t work if you have to replace your device. With Zinio (and with other places that store your files), you can typically access them on a different device (although you may be limited as to how many devices can have an issue licensed at the same time).
I do access Zinio on my Kindle Fires, by the way.
January 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
Doesn’t Amazon store your back issues too? When you subscribe through them.
January 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
Thanks for writing, jh!
While apps can be different, Amazon generally keeps a “rolling seven”. That’s the current issue, and six back issues. After that, they don’t store them.
Let’s say it is a monthly magazine. You first subscribe with the January issue. When it gets to August, Amazon will stop storing that January issue for you,
You can choose to “Keep” an issue, but that just gives you a local copy on your device, which won’t work on another device.