While other MediaPost newsletters and articles remain free to all ... our new Research Intelligencer service is reserved for paid subscribers ...
Subscribe today to gain access to every Research Intelligencer article we publish as well as the exclusive daily newsletter, full access to The MediaPost Cases, first-look research and daily insights from Joe Mandese, Editor in Chief.
2 comments about "Print Prospered In 2023, On Track To Repeat This Year".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc,
January 22, 2024 at 10:47 a.m.
Ray, print media is hardly prospering if capturing advertising dollars and becoming profitable are the benchmarks. "Audience" is certainly the least likley indicator of success, especially when most of the "readers" don't live in homes that actually pay to receive the publcation---it's those "passalong" readers that puff up the stats.
When "Colliers' and "The Women's Home Companion" went belly up in the 1950s they were attaining all time high circulatuions and readership levels. When "Life Magazine" folded its first tent, in the early 1970s, it was reaching something like 25% of all adults per issue and 50%+ if you bought a schedule spread out amoing a dozen or so issues. And "look" and "The Staurday Rvening Post", which also gave up the ghost, were no slouches on the "audience " front either. The same point applies to the sad events of the recent decade which have seen the consumer magazine medium plunge from the heights. The disaster, which unfolded before our very eyes, had nothing to do with "audience" nor demos---they were very good, nor ad receptivity--it was the highest, nor CPMs. The lost ad revenues went to TV ----to fund CPM increases---- and to digital media.
Could something have been done to avoid this disaster? I wish it was so---but that's another story.
Ray, print media is hardly prospering if capturing advertising dollars and becoming profitable are the benchmarks. "Audience" is certainly the least likley indicator of success, especially when most of the "readers" don't live in homes that actually pay to receive the publcation---it's those "passalong" readers that puff up the stats.
When "Colliers' and "The Women's Home Companion" went belly up in the 1950s they were attaining all time high circulatuions and readership levels. When "Life Magazine" folded its first tent, in the early 1970s, it was reaching something like 25% of all adults per issue and 50%+ if you bought a schedule spread out amoing a dozen or so issues. And "look" and "The Staurday Rvening Post", which also gave up the ghost, were no slouches on the "audience " front either. The same point applies to the sad events of the recent decade which have seen the consumer magazine medium plunge from the heights. The disaster, which unfolded before our very eyes, had nothing to do with "audience" nor demos---they were very good, nor ad receptivity--it was the highest, nor CPMs. The lost ad revenues went to TV ----to fund CPM increases---- and to digital media.
Could something have been done to avoid this disaster? I wish it was so---but that's another story.
Do you have a link to the Pew study? Site search is only leading to the recent study on news media. Thank you!