Dan Kennedy reports that the Christian Science Monitor will move to a Web-based publication in a few months. They’ll still produce a weekly paper version for them that wants to pay for it, but the main publication will be online only. Why the switch? If you don’t have to sell ads, Web publishing is cheaper.
Over here in Unitarian Universalist land, I fully expect that UU World magazine will be primarily Web-based within a few years. Given the state of the economy, and the probably drop in income from this year’s Annual Fund, the person we elect as president of the Unitarian Universalist Association in June, 2009, might choose to make that switch sooner rather than later.
I think you’re comparing apples to oranges, Dan. Although the business model of newspapers — especially metro newspapers — is in serious trouble, the same pressures are not actually playing out for magazines. In fact, some newspapers see their future . . . as magazines!
Some thoughts:
Unlike metro newspapers, UU World is not dependent on classified ad revenues, so Craigslist isn’t a mortal threat. Unlike metro newspapers, the magazine is not trying to sponsor its own national and international bureaus in competition with national and other metro newspapers. In fact, UU World has no real competitors right now for the advertising it carries, the content it distributes, or the service it provides. And unlike metro newspapers and consumer magazines, UU World isn’t dependent on selling subscriptions, so our circulation is stable.
UU World is not a newspaper. Sure, we publish news — and by launching uuworld.org we greatly expanded the amount of news and the timeliness of our reporting — but the magazine is not fundamentally a newspaper. It’s a magazine.
And while many magazines are exploring ways to serve their readers with digital editions, websites, and social networks, these services are not typically attempts to shore up declining circulation and advertising revenues, as they are with newspapers. They’re expansions of the brand. The reason is fairly simple: Most people don’t think of magazines as fancy newspapers.
Why not? Magazines don’t have to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle. They are almost always special-interest rather than general-interest publications. Many of them cater to leisure reading in a way that the Web (for most people) does not. Many magazines — especially including religious, alumni, and lifestyle magazines — are tactile reminders of the reader’s affinity groups. Unlike websites, magazines are objects, which is one reason why UU World now publishes fine art on its covers.
There are several reasons why I don’t think we’ll see UU World transformed into a Web-only product:
* Readers like the magazine, which comes to them as a tangible benefit of membership in their congregations. A transition to a Web-only product would be felt as the loss of a benefit by the overwhelming majority of readers, who would not see the availability of a Web magazine as remotely comparable. (It’s amazing to me how many deeply committed UUs I hear from who never visit uuworld.org, but who love the magazine. Although I’m convinced that the potential audience for uuworld.org is much larger than we currently reach, I’m also convinced that it will never approach UU World’s reach among UUs.)
* The magazine is the only service the UUA provides directly to members of congregations. Without it, the UUA would lose the tangible connection it has four times a year to individual members in their homes. Sure, the UUA would save printing and postage costs, but to what gain?
* Many readers would not have access to the magazine in a Web-only version, including many elderly readers and the CLF’s members in prison.
* Unlike newspapers, UU World is not experiencing declining ad revenues, even as advertisers are expressing interest in advertising online, too.
* As a membership magazine, UU World is not dependent on chasing circulation numbers. The church periodicals that have been failing in other denominations have all been subscription-based — but UU World is not a subscriber periodical; it’s a membership publication provided to all members.
* As it is, the UUA already has a website and numerous email lists for cheaply distributing all manner of communications. Although there are many ways the UUA could continue to expand it Web outreach, traffic at UUA.org and uuworld.org is growing at such a modest pace that I suspect that there’s a natural limit to UU interest in Web-distributed news and information. That’s not to say that the limit might not be significantly higher than we’re seeing right now, nor is it to say that the websites couldn’t be much better, but it is to suggest that it’s a fantasy to think that the entire adult membership of the UUA could be coaxed into interacting with the UUA online.
While maintaining my strict neutrality about the UUA presidential race, I will say that I think it would be a major mistake for a new president to think that the short-term savings involved in killing the print magazine during an economic downturn would be worth the loss.
Not to mention, I kinda like my job!
Chris Walton
Editor, UU World
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I do think comparing the Christian Science Monitor and UU World is a fair comparison, in the sense that both are publications run by non-profits. However, you are correct to point out that I am wrong in the sense that the Monitor apparently does rely to a certain extent on subscriptions, while UU World does not. I also admit that I remember the old Unitarian Universalist World, the denominational newspaper from the 1970s — so perhaps I do mistakenly think of UU World as a newspaper — I know that when UU World arrives, I do skip directly to the back of the book where the news stories will be (and often never read the feature articles, sad to say).
I hope you’re right about the continued print publication of UU World — I like getting the print publication. Nor am I one of those people who believes that we should get rid of all print publications and put everything on the Web — there are still plenty of people who don’t have easy access to computers (lots of them here in New Bedford, in fact). You suggest above “that it’s a fantasy to think that the entire adult membership of the UUA could be coaxed into interacting with the UUA online” — and I think that’s absolutely true — I rarely remember to read UU World online — me, who no longer buys a print newspaper because I get all my news online!
With you, I do think it would be a major mistake to kill the print magazine during an economic downturn. But I think it will be a very tempting mistake to make.
Have you considered subscribing to UU World’s free email newsletter? You’ll get links to the magazine’s weekly news coverage, online-only articles and blogs, and essays from the print magazine and its archives.
UUA President Bob West had the excellent idea around 1970 to turn the denomination’s subscription-only magazine into a newspaper sent free to all members, but I think President William Schulz had the even better idea in the mid-1980s to transform the newspaper into a magazine that had ambitions beyond simply reporting on congregational and denominational news. I regret that you haven’t found it interesting.
(P.S. The Christian Science church does publish a religious magazine for its members called “Christian Science Journal” that is much more analogous to UU World than the Monitor. The UUA has never published anything remotely as ambitious as a daily national newspaper.)
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
I worked in the Christian Science Monitor newsroom as their web strategy manager for several years, and would suggest comparing UU World to the CS church magazines.
http://www.tfccs.org/publications
Unlike the Monitor, which is a hard news operation, the church magazines are more like UU World.
And yes, they’ve curtailed some print — but also added podcasts….Some people who once subscribed to their print bible reading lessons, now get to hear them as podcasts. Some magazines are now sent as PDFs. (they also have a great gift catalog and an online mall – innovations UU’s might dig.)
I was actually joyous at the Monitor’s announcement they will switch to being a weekly — because printing a daily newspaper and sending it by postal mail means means that lots of resources get burnt up delivering *day or two day old news*. Every day.
Considering you can get all they publish for free on the web before the paid paper ever reaches you, that’s a tough product to rely on for paying the bills.
The good news is they’ve become one of the most blogged newspapers anywhere, and having run a TV station and radio operations, they’re better set up than most to deal with the multimedia driven web.
So often people keep doing this same old thing, until they’re broke and have no resources to change. I’m sure this isn’t a happy time there, but no change would be worse.
I’ve posted more thoughts on what they might become here:
http://usefularts.us/2008/10/29/christian-science-monitor-takes-a-middle-road-to-greater-utility/
Peace,
Dave Wieneke
Hey, this is pretty cool — comments from two professional who actually know what they’re talking about!
Thank you, Chris and Dave.
Chris @ 3 — You write: “I regret that you haven’t found it interesting.” Except that’s not the reason — I think the UU World magazine is one of the best-written magazines I receive. I routinely read at least some of it — while Atlantic usually winds up in the recycle bin completely unread — so I like your magazine better than Atlantic, how about that? The only reason I tend to skip over some of the feature articles is that I simply don’t have enough time to read all the things I want to read.
Dave @ 4 — Good to hear from you, and thanks for the link to the post.