Time to Debut Magazine Mix and Match

Time is finally going to launch Maghound.com, which, as Folio describes, is its "Netflix-like" service:

Maghound.com allows consumers to choose titles from a variety of publishers for a mix-and-match “subscriptions” where they pay one monthly fee and have the ability to switch titles at any time. Unlike traditional subscriptions, members aren’t locked in their memberships and can cancel whenever they wish. [President of Maghound Enterprises Dave] Ventresca says that Maghound.com offers “flexibility, choice, control and personalization.”

I think this has to be a relatively scary thing for publishers to get into. Until now, people I know would make a calculation regarding a magazine subscription: If you were going to spend more on individual issues than you would on the best discounted price you could find for a subscription, you went for the subscription.

The fear? That model pushes people into getting more subscriptions than they may want. Publishers like subscriptions, because they help guarantee that much more paid circulation, and that means being able to charge advertisers more.

But with Maghound, people can swap subscriptions at any time, and it doesn't seem to cost too much more than the "$12 for 12 months" approach, except you don't get locked in. So I'm betting there are going to be magazines that start to see their subscriptions numbers slip. That will translate into even more uncertainty at publications, which could drive even loonier and more desperate attempts to "attract" readers - a scary thought, because it usually involves some complex wishful thinking and not coming up with something that you know people want, even if they don't know that they want it. That would translate into stranger assignments and more hoop-jumping. You can bet I'll go to the site to sign up - and to see which magazines I might think of avoiding.

Publishing Needs to Focus on Smarter Editors, not Smarter Readers

Photographer director Rob Haggart had a great post on what goes on the cover of magazines. You can feel his pain in, between, and on top of the lines:

Who should we put on the cover? How about someone who actually wants to be there and that the audience cares about. How about someone we can spend some time with a write a meaningful story and take interesting pictures of. I look forward to the day when magazines can return to serving their audience and not the newsstand. Until then you're stuck with 109, free, biggest, hot, ultimate, travel, toys, secrets, great, perfect, best, sex, abs, weight-loss, getaway, new, insider, easy, delicious, shortcuts, paired with a celebrity you keep seeing over and over on the covers of magazines.

He knows of what he writes, because he's been there: a former director of photography for Mens' Journal and Outside.

I agree that the dumbing down comes from the editorial side, only in a different way than many of this think - that is, many editors are bringing less intelligence to the job and assuming that they are talking to people who know even less than they, when that may not be so. How many times have you seen editors set off on a topic or story angle that assumed the worst of their readers, or that wanted to prove a theory of theirs, no matter how much evidence suggested that they were wrong?

Maybe if we want better copy that will really attract readers, the industry needs to stop low-balling salaries of everyone other than the EIC so they don't have to focus so much on the next jump of their career, because they aren't having to live out in NJ on $28,000 with 4 roommates. Perhaps magazines could attract some people who not only love the work, but are smart and willing to consider things from the readers' vantage. And maybe have more of those editors actually talk with a lot more readers. What a concept, talking to your customers.