Isn't that the truth!

2007-10-04T12:23:00.000-07:00

"Without promotion something terrible happens. Nothing."
- P.T. Barnum

Time (Inc.) Has Come and Gone for Business 2.0

2007-10-03T06:47:00.000-07:00

After reading reports that Business 2.0 Magazine would cease to print, I received the October issue with plain white wrap stating that this was the FINAL ISSUE. Subscribers will be sent FORTUNE Magazine (at a 1-to-2 ratio, gee thanks!) instead or you can call to receive a refund.

On news of the impending cessation, supporters created a Facebook that grew to over 2,000 members in less than 2 weeks. Now that is only a fraction of the approx. 600,000 circulation, but I'd say that's pretty impressive.

Apparently, several groups have offered to acquire the magazine and/or the Business 2.0 brand and Time, Inc. was even willing to entertain them. However, in the end, they decided to simply shut it down, even rejecting an offer from the owners of Fast Company (my 2nd favorite magazine, sometimes known as FC), a quite similar and competitive publication. Even Josh Quittner, the editor of Business 2.0, was trying to find funding to buy the magazine, but to no avail. I'm not sure why Time, Inc. wouldn't simply license their content to a publisher willing to take on the headaches of print distribution. Microsoft does this with the technology media company, CMP, for the MSDN and TechNet magazines.

I remember when Time, Inc. itself purchased Business 2.0 and merged it with eCompany Now. Other similar titles included Red Herring, originally touted as the Journal of Record for the Dot Com Boom, which ceased publication in 2003 after the Dot Com Boom went bust. Also The Industry Standard, called the Bible of the Internet Economy, met its maker in 2001, however if you check the website, it says: "Coming Back..." and offers you the opportunity to sign up your email to receive an "invitation" - I'll let you know what I actually receive.

Many of my friends and colleagues read Business 2.0, we often cite and discuss the content. Interestingly, the ad pages (what really matters for magazine publishers) in B2 have dropped by 35% this year, while pubs like FC have increased their ad pages by 83%.

So, on the business side, I understand the reasoning for their decision but I wonder the cause? Such an incredible brand, which I'm sure is why Time, Inc. decided against selling, but why couldn't it sustain itself?

Ad rates too expensive?
2007 1x 4C Full-Page ad*:
B2 = $66,700
FC = $69,815
*It's important to note that these are rate card prices, which no marketer that I know ever pays. So, it's difficult to know what sort of discounts were allowed. Some publishers I've dealt with were reluctant to come off of inflated ad rates and eventually succumbed to attrition - read about Fawcette Technical Publications.

Circulation? (Sometimes a high circulation is bad for a magazine, depending on it's ad revenue ratio to production/postage expense.)
B2 = 557,093
FC = 770,672

What's interesting is that WIRED magazine has a comparable circulation of 531,491 and rate card price of $63,180 but it also generally has 3x the content (and pages) - is it in trouble also?

The magazine industry has been taking a beating for years. First people no longer wanted to pay for magazine subscriptions, forcing double-dipping publishers to move to the Qualified (read: FREE) subscription model and rely solely on ad revenue. Now, with the amount and timeliness of content online, many are shifting to digital and the advertisers are chasing the eyes in that direction, leaving the magazines high and dry.

Perhaps in the long run, it's a good thing.... save some trees! Digital is greener. I'm just still not a big fan of "reading" (at least nothing of great length) online. So, I will miss Business 2.0 - maybe now I'll be able to get through my backlog of 300+ page WIRED magazines.

So much pressure...

2007-10-01T13:25:00.000-07:00

Selecting the template for you blog holds great significance. It's a first impression - before anyone even knows what you're writing about.

Too bland? Too colorful? Bah! I chose the black background one. I've always liked that stark contrast of white on black, plus black on a monitor uses less energy, thereby conserving electricity and/or battery power.

So, sometimes you have to go black to be "green".

KrowSpeak

Isn't that the truth!

Time (Inc.) Has Come and Gone for Business 2.0

So much pressure...