Consumers, Not Media, Call the Shots
When It Comes to Digital Versus Print

By Karlene Lukovitz
President, KL MediaLink LLC

There's no question that more publishers, consumer as well as B-to-B, are launching digital magazine editions and moving to digital-only magazines. Just take a look at the news in this issue of DMN, or recent issues of any trades covering the media and advertising businesses.

Are economics playing a role here? Of course. From the publisher's standpoint, digital magazines are cost-effective content distribution vehicles that have become increasingly attractive in a climate of soaring print production and mailing costs and declining advertising revenue. And yes, publishers are deciding that print economics no longer make sense for some magazines.

But media-pundit articles implying or outright stating that launching digital editions or going digital-only is a sign of core brand weakness or worse are frankly both contradictory and hard to fathom, given the true marketplace realities.

Consumers, whether seeking business or entertainment content, couldn’t care less about a content purveyor’s P&L. Nor do they care one whit about industry insider critiques or pronouncements about how they “should” want to consume content.

All that really matters from a consumer's perspective is whether a medium delivers content that's of value to them in a format that works for their current needs.

What's the reality on this score? Given every opportunity to compare and choose between print and digital magazine formats, a large and rapidly growing number of readers are choosing digital.

Implying that "desperate" publishers are somehow foisting the digital format on consumers is ludicrous on several scores.

First of all, as we're all relentlessly reminded day in and day out—not just by the trade media, but by the numbers in our metrics reports and financial statements—consumers have unprecedented control over what they're exposed to, and they’re exercising it in spades. Indeed, consumer control is the core dynamic driving the ongoing revolution in media and marketing practices.

Does anyone really believe that today’s consumers can somehow be gulled or persuaded to continue to receive (never mind pay for) any communications vehicle that doesn't meet their content and user experience needs? If anything, consumer intolerance of anything they view as cluttering rather than enhancing their pressured business and personal lives continues to grow. Opt-outs, spam buttons, TiVo and do-not-call lists (not to mention possible government regulation of direct mail) all speak loudly and clearly to this point.

Second, forgive me for stating the obvious, but no media entity today is clueless enough to build its business model on trying to push unwanted content on audiences. Publishers are as aware as the next medium that surviving requires offering a more-compelling-than-ever value proposition to audiences and advertisers alike.

Most publishers use the digital format as an option. In fact, thousands of magazines are now available in both print and digital format. Even if it were possible to brainwash readers into choosing the digital route, which it decidedly isn’t, advertising realities would quickly squelch such shenanigans.

This is how it works: A publisher provides readers with working samples or live issues in the digital format, and readers freely decide whether they want to switch to digital or stick with print. In either case, circulation auditing requirements (which are largely shaped by advertisers) demand hard documentation of the reader’s decision. In other words, print and digital play by the same accountability ground rules.

The IEEE case study in this issue provides a good example of the digital-edition introduction process, and points up the lengths that publishers go to ensure that current print readers have ample opportunities to try out digital and make an informed format decision.

In truth, the same basic dynamics apply in cases where traditionally print magazines are being shifted to digital-only. Subscribers who value these magazine brands’ content and decide they like the digital format will sign up or pay for it; those who don’t will move on.

But you can bet that any publisher that makes this format transition decision, rather than just euthanizing the brand, has conducted reader research and has sound reason to believe that the demand for the magazine’s content and the appeal of the digital version are sufficient to support continued financial viability. In today’s brutally competitive media environment, few if any publishers can afford to risk throwing good money after bad by investing in some “Hail Mary” or roll-of-the-dice play.

Would savvy, eye-on-the-bottom-line publishers like Hearst or Hachette have decided to fold the print versions of Cosmo Girl and Elle Girl, respectively, but continue their online presence, if there wasn’t a hard return for maintaining these Web sites? Nope. They determined that young women liked their content, but that the audience’s dominant preference was accessing it online. The print subscription economics weren’t working, but the brand loyalty was there, and there were profits to be made by continuing to produce that branded content as a platform for selling advertising—both on the sites and in brand extensions made possible by those sites, such as mobile reach to young women.

In other cases, where a magazine brand can no longer profitably sustain a print version and it's also clear that its core audience won’t sufficiently embrace a digital version or online presence, the brands have simply been put to rest. There are plenty of recent examples of brands that have been folded, both consumer and B-to-B.

In contrast to the B-to-B arena, demand for the digital-magazine format on the consumer magazine side hasn't been overwhelming to date. But most consumers still aren’t even aware that this option exists, and awareness should build as more publishers market digital editions through powerful channels like Amazon, as well as digital vendor and sub agent sites. Young people in particular, being not only digitally-oriented but acutely eco-conscious, may just take to the format once they know it’s out there.

But the point is that the viability of the digital magazine format, whether in tandem with print or stand-alone and whether serving consumer or business readers, won’t be determined by publishers or media critics. Consumers will continue to spend their time and/or dollars on media that serve their needs, and media that fail this acid test will continue to fall by the wayside.

The fact that growing numbers of B-to-B and even consumer readers are currently opting for the digital magazine format—whether that’s because they view it as a comfortable transition or hybrid of the print experience and interactive capabilities, or like the eco-friendly aspect, or simply value a brand’s content enough to try consuming it in a different way—is what’s most relevant for the present.

Having said all of this, it is also true that publishers could be doing a far better job at demonstrating and marketing the value of the digital magazine format as an advertising vehicle. How? This we leave to future DMN columns.