We’ve reached the end of the glossy era
Australia’s glossy magazines today saw the worst circulation results in history. And while there’s no going back to print's glory years, if media companies choose to focus on digital, it’s not too late for them to win the new battle, argues PR and publishing editor, Miranda Ward.
It is hard to let go of tradition – and for journalists and publishers that means print. The magazine industry often argues the relevance of the printed product, suggesting that the magazine is the “heart” of a brand, with the website, events and other brand extensions spiralling away from that core product.
But if you look at the way the magazines are selling, it suggests publishers and readers are no longer on the same page.
I had been warned that the latest figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation would be a bloodbath. I’d shrugged off the suggestion that it was going to be any worse than usual – the publication of circulation figures has been a pain point for publishers for a long time.
But this time around, it was not an exaggeration.
It is a bloodbath, the worst ever.
Readers are turning away from magazines in droves, and are taking their wallets with them. The question that remains is, why are publishers insisting the magazine is still the heart of the brand, and more dramatically does this signal the end of the glossy era?
Cosmopolitan bled the hardest in this audit – with its circulation plummeting by a dramatic 43.9% in just a year, while national icon The Australian Women’s Weekly dropped below 400,000 issues sold on average a month for the first time ever.
For The Weekly it will be pain felt by the entire team – the first audit minus editor-in-chief Helen McCabe and the title sheds 41,081 copies after years of stability. It’s not a positive move considering the change in direction of content following McCabe’s abrupt departure.
As one source within the mag industry has repeatedly told me – the Women’s Weekly baby-boomer audience is aging, and depressingly dying, they suggest at the same rate as the magazine’s print circulation is now declining.
The Australian Women’s Weekly and Pacific Magazines’ Better Homes & Gardens are the only non-weekly ABC-audited titles which have a circulation greater than 100,000 – suggesting just two magazines remain part of the mainstream. The rest of the audit is sitting around the 40-70,000 mark.
Are these magazines really profitable?
Publishers aren’t sitting with their heads in the sand – diversification is happening with digital and other revenue streams such as events and merchandise, but the majority of publishers still insist on the importance of the printed magazine.
They say it is the heart of the masthead brand from which everything else spirals from. But if audiences are clearly not buying the product anymore, why does it deserve to be the priority?
Traditional publishers will find it hard to back away from print; the closure of Cleo taught the industry lessons about a closure gone bad.
But shifting the focus online isn’t necessarily a bad thing – Bauer Media’s Dolly made the shift to bi-monthly and digital first at the start of the year. While it is difficult to assess the level of success of the strategy, it has had a positive impact on the magazine’s circulation.
In the second half of last year, Dolly – then monthly – reported a circulation of 28,030. A result which would have made much of the Dolly staff nervous. For the first half of this year – Dolly relaunched as digital-first and bi-monthly in print in April – the magazine has seen its circulation inch back up to 30,010.
It suggests that Bauer perhaps knew where its audience was heading – and audiences have been willing to buy the bi-monthly Dolly product as a result.
Publishers need to realise that the print product isn’t the ‘hero’ or the ‘heart’ of the masthead anymore – especially for younger audiences – and publishers need to make a decision about what they want that to be, or look to where their audiences are to work out how to best monetise the brand from that perspective.
Famous made the decision in April this year that print was no longer the ‘heart’ – with Pacific Magazines axing the print product entirely to focus on digital.
It was a decision that made sense – the type of content produced by Famous lives better online and indeed is being consumed online.
According to Nielsen, FamousLive had 13,871 average unique daily browsers in July. When the print magazine was axed it had a circulation of 45,096.
While the numbers may seem to speak for themselves, it is hard to tell how successful the transition has been; however, Famous was not going to survive in a print format so a change had to be made.
Pacific Magazines made the right choice in order to give the masthead the best chance of survival, now it’s up to the editorial team to ensure they’re delivering what readers want.
Attempting to justify an expensive legacy product simply because of its history is not only foolish it’s commercially reckless.
If readers aren’t interested, it’s time to drop the wishful thinking and focus on where the audiences are. Not look for them where you want them to be.
Monetising digital is difficult but holding on to print as the ‘heart’ is only going to make the eventual transition more painful.
I’m not arguing that print should be ditched completely, it can still be a valid part of the masthead ‘brand’ but it is clearly no longer the ‘heart’.
With content available at the touch of button, a quick Google search, a glance at your social feeds, buying a magazine isn’t a priority for audiences, and it’s time the magazine industry properly shifted its strategy to focus on digital, with print considered a spoke off the digital wheel of the masthead.
The audience has voted: the glossy is no longer the heart and soul of a magazine brand. It’s time publishers listened and properly focused on how to best monetise digital.
It would be great if there actually is a digital alternative that could be monetised. Publishers all over the world are trying to find it.
But in Australia, ignoring the advertising revenue issue, the challenge will surely be whether people will continue to pay for a local digital version of an international brand when a subscription to the mother title, with likely greater editorial resources and bigger budgets, is cheaper to buy and available through the ITunes Store?
User ID not verified.
ABC audits show massive drops,
yet CAB audits remain steady or increase.
Amazing!
User ID not verified.
It should also be noted that Digital paid subs have grown from a tiny 0.9% of TOTAL Sales 2015 to a tiny 1.2% of Total Sales in 2016.
Even PRINT Subscriptions are larger than that – yet all we talk about is digital. If Publishers looked at investing in Print Subscriptions marketing (as some do), they may start seeing some interesting results.
User ID not verified.
No one wants to pay for content and traditional print will never again see the revenue they once did. Facebook and Google will be the gateway to most content and will be enjoy the lions share of revenue. Media that was once great will get the scraps.
User ID not verified.
I’ll never understand why publishers don’t just drop the prices of mags. Cosmo UK just dropped their cover price to one pound, and saw a huge increase in circ – they’ve now overtaken their nearest competitor, Glamour, which they haven’t done in years. It’s not rocket science.
User ID not verified.
Why would I buy a celebrity magazine / Outdoor magazine / Music Magazine (enter further genres here), when I can follow celebrities, adventurers, et al on a variety of social channels, blogs, YouTube and their own websites?
User ID not verified.
love to know the media schedules these self appointed keyboard gurus are recommending to their clients…oh that’s right, they are all programmatic and pretty soon jobs in media will be simply that…better to get off the digital only path and help circulation out i’d say…nothing like a $20K page to help pay the wages…
User ID not verified.
Keep putting Sam Armitage on covers, great way to go out of business
User ID not verified.
The key to any business is monetization. If you aren’t making money in print get out of print. If you’re selling ads and/or selling print copies and making a profit than do that. It’s business 101 folks – there is no right or wrong way. Just choose a way that works for your niche content….and make money.
User ID not verified.
Sometime I feel like a dinosaur (at the age of 26) that I still spend my money on magazines and enjoy them – I like long form journalism in a way reading online doesn’t replicate. Having said that, the magazine I choose to buy are magazines like Womankind, Wellbeing magazine, Frankie, Money and Healthy Food Guide – magazines that are more niche or stand out from the crowd. I can’t imagine spending money on the gossip rags where everything they write can be found on gossip blogs or Youtube. These titles are already irrelevant, I’ve also started to feel the bi-monthly mags have an advantage over the monthlies. I have a subscription to Money magazine and often find I haven’t finished reading one issue before I’m sent another one – I can see why publications that have gone bi-monthly are seeing positive results, not only does the reader have more time to read each issue (maybe more difficult these days with the overwhelming amount of content they get through every day via the internet), this also means a better quality issue and less re-hashing of content.
User ID not verified.
No one talks about Affiliate Marketing in this country, but it is the ultimate solution for monetizing content. Working on a CPA basis keeps merchants happy (only paying for conversions), and keeps content producers accountable for the results they are driving for advertisers.
User ID not verified.
easy to say in a country with 80m potential readers, all densely-populated (relative to Oz). If mags here had cover price of $1 (or $2) they’d be losing a truckload just to print and distribute them.
User ID not verified.
Niche magazines, small print runs, and different and interesting content are what people are looking for. Readers are fed up with the homgenisation of content; they want something that is relevant to them, because they are different. Goodbye hyperlocal and hello microlocal. So goodbye to the glossies and hello to Womankind and similar. It is taking a while for it to sink in with the big name brands, though.
User ID not verified.
Agreed. Year after year digital fails to monetise. It’s time to rethink and invest in print before it disappears, instead of hatcheting it to death.
User ID not verified.
Susan, you’re one of the few that know what they’re talking about. Publishers can’t get off the drug of the mass title ad page while the world remains very happy to buy and read magazines in genres despite what “But Really” thinks. Try tracking the trends of magazines in niches, TV shows, retail categories, etc in genre’s/trends and you’ll find interesting revelations.
Then there is the migration to digital. Very hard to find someone that can articulate the role a magazine brand online can play without making it a magazine online…hard to understand…that’s my point.
Might need to throw the bath out with the bath water to save the baby. We all like to shower now anyway…try understand why.
User ID not verified.