Sunday, April 13, 2008

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Editors; We Are Not Worried!

BoSacks Readers Speak Out; Editors; We Are Not Worried!

RE: Magazine Editors: We're Not Worried About Internet
Wow! Remarkably misguided even for insular magazine insiders.
(Submitted by a Director Of Technology)

RE: Magazine Editors: We're Not Worried About Internet
It is the idiocy correctly depicted here that is destroying our industry. These editors have no clue, no clue whatsoever. They make too much money. Someone should take away their expense account and let them see what is going on in the real world.
(Submitted by an Editor)

RE: Magazine Editors: We're Not Worried About Internet
I think this falls into the category of "ignorance being bliss" for many. They aren't afraid because too many still don't get it. And that's just the Editor. The Publisher has a whole slew of problems of their own. I was at an event the other day and spoke to the Publisher of a large home decorating title. We were discussing the problems they are having in being innovative with selling ad packages that include the web, events, etc. After 10 minutes of chatting about things like Stylepress, new digital opportunities etc. her comment was "You need to help me yell at my sales team, they just don't get it".

So the bottom line is there are still an awful lot of smart people not "getting it". Newspapers are heading into oblivion and magazines should be the bright and shining light, but it may take another slight generational change to get the right management minds - both editorial and business - in place to fully grasp the situation and drive the transition to new mediums. Not sure that means editors are going to become "brand managers" quite honestly, but they probably will be much more market savvy. Actually the concept of Editorial Brand Managers is a little bit disconcerting, dumbing down journalism to aid and abet the sale of washing machines and Rolex watches :) Why does progress have to imply a dilution of what makes the whole magazine experience great?
(Submitted by a Publisher)

RE: Magazine Editors: We're Not Worried About Internet
Yep, that makes sense. The tactile experience will save the medium. Just look at what the intricate album covers of the 60's and 70's (Sgt. Pepper, Kiss' Love Gun, and oh so much more) did to keep music from going digital. Not even embedding premium access and videos onto CD's has been able to slow the move to digital. Come to think of it the tipping point was a great device backed by a quality and sensible way of obtaining music. Once that cat is skinned the gooses will be cooked.
(Submitted by a Printer, media enthusiast and aspiring futurist)

RE: Magazine Editors: We're Not Worried About Internet
Bo, Its management like this that depresses me. The industry can and should have a great future. All it takes is good leadership. Have you seen any? The bigger the publisher the less vision and flexibility the corporation has. There must be a Murphy Law in that statement somewhere.
(Submitted by a Circulator)

RE: BoSacks Readers Speak Out: What is a Magazine?
Bo, Until the last print subscriber goes, it's still a magazine. That day is still a long way off.
(Submitted by a Sr. Production Manager)

Re: Magazines Face Curbs to Photo Airbrushing
I have a slightly biased opinion in this being that outside of my work for a national distributor--- I do a lot of work with digital art. I have been recognized for my skills in Photoshop and take pride in helping models take their images to another level. The problem here is not what artists such as myself do to images or if magazines use them. What's being discussed is how manipulation alters perception of reality causing models to go down unhealthy paths---

The modeling industry is extremely demanding and there are millions of people in the US alone aspiring to be the next great model. If manipulating photos to achieve desired results becomes frowned upon . . . models will have to struggle that much harder to look "perfect." The root of the problem is not how we get to an image considered ideal or adequate for print, the problem is what is considered ideal.

Taking manipulation out of the equation at this time . . . will just make it that much more difficult for a model who doesn't meet industry standards. Nearly all new photographers consider photoshop today's dark room . . . . and the manipulations being discussed aren't limited to what's being done in print . . . it's being done by many people in every town in the country . . . and it's becoming easier for people every day.

What people don't recognize is that there is already a shift happening. As average photographers can more easily make a model look perfect by standards of old--- the challenge becomes to make a model look more perfect in a natural way. Flawless skin will start to look plastic . . . assumptions will be made that it was photoshopped. Perfect curves will start to look too perfect . . . and assumed photoshopped.

Anything can be done with photoshop . . . and eventually people will attribute "too perfect" with photoshop. This will definitely happen as the market becomes saturated with images of models that look just as beautiful as the ones in the magazines. People go to magic shows not to see real magic but to see the illusive. . . Everyone knows that the images in magazines are altered to one degree or another . . . but the full extent of the illusion is not known. The veil is quickly being lifted. The magazines won't have to struggle to find a market for something for more real... less "air brushed," The market will want it before long.

When people like myself with a limited background in photography but years and years of photoshop experience can make avg girls look as beautiful as a model on the cover of Cosmo... centerfold of Playboy... etc it's just a matter of time before most photographers can. Every new edition of photoshop comes with tools that make it that much easier.
(Submitted by a PhotoShop user)

Re: BoSacks Readers Speak Out: What is a Magazine?
Bo, Way back in April 2002, The Smithsonian ran a piece by Owen Edwards (a senior consulting editor at Forbes in those days and co-author with Jim Clark of the book "Netscape Time") in which he wrote about magazines. The head was "A MAGAZINE SHOULD HAVE THE ZEST OF A GOOD DINNER PARTY" and in the article he said, "As an editor myself, I have always believed that the best magazines resemble memorable dinner parties . . . intimate experiences, aking to visits with knowing wordly acquaintances."
Old fashioned, maybe, but I contend that the best magazines today are still distinct organic entities which deliver a sense to the reader of having a conversation with a knowing wordly acquaintance.
Or has the world passed me by?
(Submitted by a Publisher)

FW: Today's Top Contrarian Pick
Good Morning Bob! I like the new look to your blog; you seem to be busier (or more efficient) than ever; the snippets at the margins of your blog are as interesting as the body of text; Keep up the good work.
(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re; PMG newsletter
Bo, I have to be one of your oldest, long time readers going back to the early 1990s. I have followed your point of view and proven accuracy with great joy. I wonder how many of your readers remember your prediction of CTP before it was even called CTP? What I enjoy the most is that you are what I would call a grounded futurist. All your prognostications have always been stuck with hard realism and bottom-line profit as a sobering benchmark for progress. And I think that is why you tend to be correct on so many issues. It is the stable business sense behind the predictions that makes your observations so valuable. Anyway, all I wanted to say was that I love the new look of the newsletter. The sidebars are a great new feature, almost as good as the quotations.
Thanks for all the hard work and terrific information.
(Submitted by a Multi-Title Publisher)

No comments: