Much Less “Fortune”
I love Fortune magazine. It is a long-time love affair that I routinely share with colleagues, friends, and students. I even create writing assignments around special themed issues, such as “The 50 Most Powerful Women in Business” and “The Leadership Issue” in hopes that my students will begin their own relationship with the magazine.
With the March 3, 2008, issue, however, I am finding much less Fortune to love. The issue weighs in at a paultry 106 pages. More distressing than the lean look is the anemic 35 pages of content I counted. Can there really only be 35 pages of interesting business news in the world today?
I am not disparaging Fortune’s content, but rather the lack of articles. As a matter of fact, I like the recent design changes to make the magazine look better. The layout is fine. But, “where’s the beef?”
Perhaps the answer lies in the overall economic picture. Time-Warner faces tough times. The company recently announced additional cuts to its magazine division, which includes People, Time, Sports Illustrated, and Fortune. Last year, the company shuttered Business 2.0, the technology-focused magazine that somehow survived the dot.com bust, but died in the Web 2.0 revitalized world. Has anyone been able to sufficiently explain that one?
Certainly magazine ads (all advertising, really) are less appealing in a belt-tightening era. Many of the current issue’s advertisers are foreign companies: Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, RBS, etc.
Maybe the digital world is finally nailing the coffin of traditional magazines, as observers have predicted for the last decade or so. I teach pre-professional students, most of whom will make their careers in communications and my guess is that less than 10 percent of them have ever heard of Fortune, much less read it regularly. But, they know every detail of whatever pop culture scandal is current and they all read Perez Hilton. Marc Andreesen, Netscape founder and technology guru, initiated a “New York Times Deathwatch,” calling the company out for being…basically…obsolete in today’s age. [Ironically, reported in the link above by Josh Quittner, Fortune’s Executive Editor, who does not seem to get that the same forces that place NYT on a deathwatch do so for Fortune.]
So, take a great, venerable magazine…add a struggling parent, declining readership, younger audiences that would rather watch YouTube videos, and a general economic downturn and you and I get a Fortune on life support.
This after the annual reup for my subscription offered me the “special subscriber rate” of $49.95 a year, when the book is routinely listed on sites across the Web at $29.95! [I must note that Fortune’s customer service reps gave me the lower rate when I contacted them about this issue. But imagine how many people they got at $50 a year?]
Please Fortune, you’ve got great writers and a fascinating subject to illuminate. Figure out what gives. Just like any other organization, I believe part of the answer will be to reinvigorate the brand through reputation management and communications.
March 1st, 2008 at 14:32
Bob, I heartily agree with you about Fortune magazine. I love it, or shall I say, used to love it. I subscribed for decades, but finally let it drop a few months back.
I always thought it was the greatest business magazine ever. Just to see how creative the mag could be with business photos was reason enough to subscribe. They could continually show business people in new and creatively flattering ways.
Too bad. Maybe the end of an era.
Les
March 2nd, 2008 at 15:10
In the short time I have been in public relations I have already seen many magazines go defunct or switch to an online only format. Traditional publications such as Fortune will have to change in order to survive in this Web 2.0 world. The fact is, most people get their news online, so where a publication appears in a Google search is what really matters in this day in age.
For example, last year The New York Times stopped charging viewers to access content on its website. It realized that much of the traffic driven to its site was via search engines like Google and Yahoo. In the end the money it can generate from advertising trounced the the revenue from subscriptions.
The rise of user generated content is also changing the face of publications. Everything is changing at viral speeds, so it will be interesting to watch how it all plays out.
March 2nd, 2008 at 15:40
Hi Les, I’m hoping that Fortune doesn’t go under, but the last issue sure served as an eye-opener for me.
I heard a guy ahead of me in Wal-Mart yesterday (about the only place my family can afford to buy groceries on our anemic teaching salaries…but that’s a topic better left for another day!) say that he thought we were in a depression. I wonder if there is any truth to that assertion…or at least that we’re headed toward a depression.
When the top-flight business magazine in the world can only squeeze out 35 pages of content, it must be an indicator of where we’re at economically.
Thanks for your comment and time. I appreciate it (as always).
Sincerely,
Bob
March 2nd, 2008 at 15:46
Hi Jenna, great to hear from you. Wish the city well from me! I think your comment is right on the mark. Another thing I’ve been thinking about lately is the overall move away from reading in today’s society.
The Internet has turned us into a nation of skimmers. Few people closely read anymore. It’s quite sad, because I see people skimming right through the contextual aspects of a topic, so then the points of contention in the ensuing discussion are skewed. The loudest voice in the group swings the group toward a decision, but then the decision is based on gut and whatever was skimmed in the first place.
In “Issues” last week I talked about this phenomenon, but I think it basically zoomed right by them. Basically, I concluded that “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king,” i.e. if they read, they will be ahead of the curve. Oh well, that’s my rant for today.
Take care!
Sincerely,
Bob