• by Erik Sass  @eriksass1, October 16, 2006

As magazines struggle with the rise of the Internet and shifting consumer preferences, traditional mainstays are under siege. One notable example is "shelter" mags, including some of America's most venerable purveyors of homemaking advice. Like lad mags on the other side of the gender divide, shelter and craft mags are caught between a rock and hard place: on one side they face competition from the Internet, and on the other, a market that may be over-saturated.

While numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) and Publishers Information Bureau (PIB) don't tell the whole story, there's no mistaking the general trend. The most recent ABC FAS-FAX--a report detailing subscriptions and single-copy sales--has Better Homes and Gardens down 18.5 percent at the newsstand for January-June 2006 compared to the same period last year. Meanwhile, PIB's latest report covering January-August says the mag's ad pages are down 6.9 percent compared to 2005.

Better Homes isn't alone: Good Housekeeping, which covers homemaking as well as more general interest topics, is down 16.2 percent at the newsstand, while ad pages have stayed flat compared to last year. Another big shelter mag, Home, is down 24.9 percent at the newsstand--with ad pages down 8.9 percent. Competitor House Beautiful is down 15.1 percent at the newsstand, and 16.9 percent in ad pages.

The trend cuts across sub-genres. Shelter mags with a regional spin aren't being spared: Country Living is down 15.6 percent at the newsstand and 10 percent in ad pages, and Country Home is down 15.6 percent at the newsstand, while ad pages are basically flat. Conversely, Southern Living is flat at the newsstand, but ad pages have fallen 12.4 percent. And Metropolitan Home, targeting the urban set, is down 13.3 percent at the newsstand and 11.2 percent in ad pages.

According to Samir Husni, a magazine expert in the journalism school at the University of Mississippi, part of the problem for shelter magazines with a craft component may be competition from the Web on "how-to" explanations and product suggestions. Comparing their difficulties to sports enthusiast titles, Husni explained: "These magazines are challenged on two fronts, both in browsing and also in searching for a particular kind of product or merchandise. The Web simply does this sort of thing better."

In this gloomy environment, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia's homemaking titles are a rare bright spot. Flagship Martha Stewart Living is up 57.8 percent in ad pages and 74.8 percent in rate card revenue, while newsstand sales showed modest growth of 4.3 percent. Of course, these phenomenal numbers are likely at least in part a rebound from the tough times that followed Stewart's insider trading scandal in 2005.

Nonetheless, Stewart may hold the key to success in a tough market, including a Web strategy that doesn't cannibalize print readership. A brand unto herself, Stewart can divvy up editorial content to play to the strengths of different media channels: thus the Web presence tends to favor in-depth how-to explanations, as compared with broad features presenting a number of ideas in the print publications. This allows the Web sites to drive users to the magazines, and vice versa, as well as Stewart's TV and radio shows. By contrast, Good Housekeeping's Web site makes no mention of rival Hearst publications like House Beautiful or Country Living.

For all the industry's troubles, Stewart is a staunch advocate of print magazines. In fact, this summer she defied conventional wisdom by launching a new shelter title targeting younger women, Blueprint, which has generated a lot of advertiser interest. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Blueprint can sustain its appeal after the post-launch honeymoon period. But for now, it's a striking affirmation from Stewart that younger readers will still consume print content.