• by Larry Dobrow , June 11, 2003

By the time the smoke cleared following last month's television upfronts, advertisers had committed approximately $9.3 billion to broadcast and $5.6 billion to cable for the seasons ahead - respectively, 14.8 and 21.7 percent increases over 2002 levels. The commitments were significantly higher than anybody had expected; one Viacom executive was even quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We're over-the-top happy."

Though initially drowned out by the euphoric whoops coming from their TV brethren, magazine publishers reacted to the upfronts with a mixture of concern and jealousy. After all, many wondered, hadn't many of these same advertisers been pleading poverty for the last two years? And more importantly, now that these advertisers had finally reached deep into their pockets, would there be more than a few stray nickels left for magazines?

"I don't think there's a publisher out there who didn't think, 'where did all that money come from?'" quips Tom McCluskey, vice president/publisher of Biography.

For the most part, publishers and industry observers downplayed the effect such heady advertiser commitments would have on the magazine business. Most chose to emphasize the positive, expressing hope that momentum from the TV upfronts would carry over into magazines and other mediums before too long. Indeed, the idiom "a rising tide lifts all boats" was floated more than once or twice.

"My first thought [upon seeing the upfronts] was 'this is a good sign,' because magazine ad spending usually lags behind cable and broadcast," recalls Gruner + Jahr executive vice president Dan Rubin. "My second thought was 'how long are we going to have to wait?'" Rebecca McPheters, president of publishing consultancy McPheters and Co., reacted even more strongly: "I was appalled. It is extraordinary to me that with the increasing fragmentation and decreasing network audiences, broadcast keeps getting more money for less."

One factor that might have spurred advertisers to spend now and ask questions later was last year's pricey scatter market for broadcast and cable. "People were looking to get in early, rather than take a chance on the scatter market later in the game," explains Jeff Hamill, senior vice president, advertising sales and marketing for Hearst Magazines. "So it doesn't necessarily mean that [advertisers] pulled money from other media to fund the upfront buys."

Similarly, others noted that TV has historically seized the lion's share of the advertising dough in both good times and bad. "I don't want to say that magazines have always been treated as a second-class citizen when it comes to advertising, but that's more or less been the case," says Dr. Samir Husni, head of the magazine program at the University of Mississippi.

As for the doomsday scenario of advertisers blowing all their cash before making magazine commitments, well, nobody truly believes that will come to pass anytime soon. But if rising broadcast and cable ad rates result in marketing dollars being siphoned away from magazines, it's likely that the fourth or fifth books in a given category would bear the brunt of the blow. "The lesser titles would feel it," predicts Andy Clerkson, general manager of Maxim Magazine and Maxim Brands. "In our category, for example, we're not going to take a hit and neither will FHM or Stuff, but some of the other books probably will."

So where does all of this leave magazine publishers? Pretty much in the same place they've been for the last 20 months: trying to squeeze every available marketing dollar out of advertisers' pockets. Displeasure with the antiquated upfront process aside, most publishing experts preached patience.

"Advertisers who say that they'll spend whatever it takes to be on network television, sure, they could conceivably have less money for other advertising mediums," says Hamill. "But the biggest and most important advertisers are never going to be in that position, and most magazine companies do business with thousands of companies. When you look at it that way, the overall effect could be a little overrated."