Our news magazine is losing readership. We need to decide if we’re going to keep it or create a magazine that is tailored for a niche audience? What arguments are there for and against demassification? Pick a side and argue your point.
REPLY TO THIS POST so others can see your comments in this same space. Please do not create your own separate post.
The reason that magazines are losing readership is because all of the things that people used to only be able to find out in magazines, are posted all over the internet so why would someone go out of their way to buy and read a magazine when it is more easily accessible to them on the internet. I think readership will continue to die for magazines until they stop producing them, which will cause a lot of job loss in our country unfortunately. I think demassification is okay in this situation because in my opinion it is inevitable, it will cause a lot of job loss but I think those people will be able to find a job that is not slowly dying which will be better for them as well.
Are you wanting to keep the magazine as it is, or tailor it for a niche audience? (Specific topics and interests).
I personally enjoy reading magazines over reading on the internet because they are just more personal. However, the main reason I stopped reading magazines was because of all the ads in them! It was ridiculous and I just couldn’t take it anymore. I like the content that is produced in gardening magazines, sports, and home decor but the ads are too much. If we were to cut back on ads in magazines, I think a lot more “magazine-loving-folk” would read them and pay money for some tangible ideas. I think we should go ahead and create a magazine that is tailored to a niche audience. It’s the only way magazines, in general, will continue to survive.
I find that people are reading fewer magazines, just like a newspaper, because you can find all of the information on the internet. And in reality, it is way easier to find information online than it is in a magazine. The only time I could ever remember reading a magazine is for a high school class and even then, I did not read the entire magazine. I truly believe that magazines will most likely end because all the information you could ever need is on the internet. That being said, if magazines are no longer a thing, then people would lose their job which would lead to demassification. I honestly think that if and when magazines die, there will be nothing wrong with demassification because those people who would end up losing a job could find another job. It would really suck for those who do lose their job, but hopefully, when magazines no longer become a thing, it will decrease slowly so it makes it easier for them to find a job.
I completely agree with you on magazines slowly decreasing as it would be better for society. The only thing is many people do prefer the paper copy instead especially people who did not have technology their whole life. Also people who cannot afford wifi or internet in this case would not be able to keep up with what would have been in a magazine. Just food for thought. I agree with you completely and I am glad to see that I am not the only one who agrees that magazines should go.
Are you wanting to keep the magazine as it is, or tailor it for a niche audience? (Specific topics and interests).
I agree with you on the fact that magazines are losing readership due to the mass amount of technology we have. Nearly everything you want to know can be found on the internet. It’s crazy how much has changed even since I was a kid. (And that was not that long ago.) I enjoyed reading the magazines on farming and horse jumping as a young girl and after devouring them my siblings and I would cut out our favorite pictures and paste them onto cardstock and make paper dolls. It was great. While magazines are certainly losing popularity, I think there may be a chance that they could come back if properly tailored.
Why is our magazine losing readership? Is it too expensive? Does it properly compete with other publications of the same genre? Are we providing the reader with what they want? These questions become great questions only if we have the answers. Our magazine should definitely be online. But that does not mean we should completely stop printing physical copies. I would like to see our magazine provide both formats to our readers. This will give us a nice balance between reducing the overhead cost of producing original content. While also allowing us to boost revenue through competing with other publications for online advertising dollars.
“…opposed to sites produced by paper magazines, purely online magazines must generate original content, an expensive undertaking, yet they compete online for readers and advertisers as equals with those subsidized by paper magazines.†(p. 107)
This is a great idea! I think magazines would make a lot more money if they had multiple options on how to view the material! I like the way you think, I think those questions would be helpful to figure out why magazines are losing readership.
Online vs paper arguments aside, the question was if they magazine should continue as a global news/info, or turn into a niche magazine. (limited topic/interest/etc). Which do you think would be the best route?
My thoughts are more along this line as well…it seems like you are saying to identify the niche and compare with the same genre of magazine to see how to maximize the readership of the portion that IS published. With so many competing interests, trying to appeal to too broad of a market is likely to be another hurdle.
I believe one reason magazines are losing readership is because no one wants to rely on a single source for information anymore. With all of the misinformation given by the media, people prefer to read multiple takes on a subject so they can discern the truth for themselves. The demassification of magazines is not only inevitable but some would say necessary. It is more responsible to read multiple opinions and reports to form your own opinion than it is to be swayed by a single author or magazine.
If a magazine is tailored towards a niche, it can then be fiscally viable because it is geared towards the particular reader. This will not sell as many copies as the original back when magazines were popular but we may see a more steady amount of copies sold.
I absolutely love your reasoning and it echos my own thoughts exactly! Well done!
While there are subscribers who receive and read hard copy magazines, I can imagine most of those are free or they use points to get them. The magazines that I used to get in the mail, I usually only looked at the pictures and then toss them or they go into a pile and they become scraps for my kids school projects. Everything that I would read in them, I can find in an ad on facebook or on any given site that I may visit while online. The articles are obsolete by the time they are posted due to the internet being and instant source.
I loved reading magazines, but they’re expensive to buy to be honest. It usually costs more than $10 for a reader but I always have 20% discounts from BN. So I take advantage of it for buying some of my selective magazines (I could be a niche reader) from bookstore rather than buying them from supermarkets. However, if the magazines companies do not go to online businesses to publish their articles, they may soon losing of their readers because online magazines are easier to read and navigate for better explanations, such as high-perlinks for videos and other related articles (citing). Online magazines definitely are much cheaper even I have to pay the subscription to read the complete version of publication. Additional, online article offer a section of welcoming for our comments. It can be one of information sharing after reading the article or even our rants for the writer if we are not happy of the article or false information or so on. It’s diplomacy, I guessed but l like that as well.
Therefore, the magazines publishers are eventually going to be completely online magazines publishing, I believed it will be more beneficial for their businesses than loosing in terms of their production costs.
Thank you.
Are you wanting to keep the magazine as it is, or tailor it for a niche audience? (Specific topics and interests).
No, I don’t think so because if someone is a niche audience, that reader is open minded and interested in new things in the interested topic. Magazines are not The Bible. Topic such as cars (vehicle) is one of them. There is always a new thing or two. I read more than one topic and interest. When I walked in to explore magazines, I know the specific section even it’s a new store.
Thank you for asking me for a question.
I think this is just the way of the future I do not worry about people that get there job taken away many people get their job taken away for dumber reason. They have to adapt and over come yes it will not be easy but the world is always moving forward and it is best to get ahead of the game. Just by getting rid of the need for paper one is Eco friendly so pluses there with the new wave of save the planet, less paper more trees. This also cuts cost and easier distribution to further reaches. The people that used to work for you will have to adapt but the the business comes first or everybody looses in the long run. Humans are resilient they will survive the change. If it is harder to adapt that might be because they were living outside there means and they will come to the realization they need to reduce spending and wants just like the GOV should. Because just like government I do not see the need for some of the politicians jobs but we waste money on them and see how that is working. we Should distribute cheap tablets to airports flights and waiting rooms everywhere with a contract with google Crome books so that the tablet can only be used to browse what magazines are on it. For every one else easy apps and emails would work just fine. save money and get more advertising contracts with more viewers to reach out to. Plus each tablet can collect data on what people viewed and how much time was spent on each page to calculate interest in certain topics presented. Information war is what we are dealing with we need data back faster to correct what is not liked and it is easier electronically than having to recall all the distributed paperbacks sent out.
Was this meant for a different post? I can’t understand it, or its relevance? The assignment is “Our news magazine is losing readership. We need to decide if we’re going to keep it or create a magazine that is tailored for a niche audience.” So do you think you should keep the magazine as it is, or switch it to a magazine which is tailored to a niche audience? Why?
I feel like demassification is the only route to go at this point. When magazines were first invented, they were the main source of news for many people. But when televisions came along, magazines started to struggle. Television, and now the internet, can publish the general and worldwide news as it happens. By the time a magazine is able to publish a current event, everyone has already heard about it. However, by catering to a niche market, magazines can rope in some audiences with a specific interest, that TV and the internet might leave behind. The growing magazine readership mentioned in our textbook shows that magazines aren’t dead. We just have to find our target audience.
Baran, Stanley J. Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture. McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.
Very good point about tv and other news sources leaving out niches. You are very right that the key is to find our target audience. One that isn’t too limited,
I agree…there was a time when magazines really were reporting “new news”. When I was in high school, we cut up US News & World Report, Time, and Newsweek to paste onto index cards for speech and debate. It was current news. I was still coaching when the internet based news exploded and the innovative teams that had access to it would update their speeches and wow the crowd. Now a magazine represents news you already know with juicy details or more indepth coverage or the glossy photos you want to keep. There has to be a reason to take the time and space for a magazine. Niche audience!
Similar to magazines, I think that we are on the fast track to purely being online. People love instant gratification when it comes to news stories, or gossip (like in magazines). I literally find everything out happening in the world from Twitter. Public figures, news companies etc are so quick to post breaking stories on social media such as Twitter, and I think this is probably where everyone gets their stories from today. When the tension between Iran and the US was happening last month, I followed a lot of it on Twitter. Although, when I think of magazines I mainly think of celebrity gossip, makeup tips, etc. because that’s what I grew up reading really. However, all that is available at our fingertips in the matter of seconds on the internet. I think it’s a great idea for magazines to be solely online these days.
Are you wanting to keep the magazine as it is, or tailor it for a niche audience? (Specific topics and interests).
With our readership rapidly declining, we need to make some changes. Our audience is obviously moving on to either other magazines or other media mediums. The first step we should take is to examine other magazines which cover the same things. Is their readership declining as well? Do they offer better content then we do? If they answer is yes to both then we should see the writing on the wall and discontinue our magazine. If their readership is not declining, then we should examine our own magazine and make changes so that it will be more competitive. If all else fails and our readership remains in decline, then we should switch to a niche magazine. Our only function is to give the reader what they want, and if they no longer want our product, then we should stop spending money to make it.
I like your initial approach in evaluating WHY the audience is moving away.
If we are already seeing a decline in numbers of readership, then we are already on a sinking ship. We can either stay on the ship as it sinks, or we can get into a lifeboat and see if we survive. The odds are better, after all. To continue on our path would be a grave error which many business commit and cannot come back from; escalation of commitment. Escalation of commitment is an observed pattern of human behavior in which individuals or groups that are facing negative outcomes from actions or decisions, continue with that behavior, rather than alter course. Logically this behavior is irrational, but the person or group rely upon the previous ‘known’ actions and decisions. Our ‘known’ previous actions and decisions are continuing a downward trend in audience. Thereby, we know it would be illogical to continue as we are.
On a general scale, it is my opinion that the loss in audience is a nationwide phenomenon due to the broad range of mobile devices and ease of access to a very saturated news and media market. Which is even more reason for us to change course and try another route. In creating a niche magazine, yes we limit the overall POSSIBLE total number of readers, but it means we can retain those numbers consistently, rather than seeing our numbers consistently sink with a broad magazine. Put it this way: If we keep a broad magazine we can have a possible max total of 1 million readers. But the numbers are consistently diving. If we keep a niche magazine, we can have a possible max total of 800,000 readers which stays consistent since we are one of the only company’s which produces a high amount of information on a particular interest/field.
Is it a guarantee that a global magazine audience will continue to drop and a niche magazine would remain fairly consistent in audience? No. But in a gamble, which would you bet all your life savings on?
The discussion for this post follows a similar trend from last weeks discussion on the continuation of printing newspapers. I remember when I was younger, I absolutely loved to read the teen drama magazines. Slowly, that changed to People magazine, and Cosmo (aka the bible), and National Geographic. Personally, I find that there is something wonderful and satisfying about sitting through a five hour hair appointment and flipping through one magazine after another. However, it seems as though it is inevitable that our world is going completely online. The easy as fast access of online applications and news stands makes cheaper and easier to receive the same information, if not more, that you would get looking through a magazine. With that being said, I do think that it would be beneficial to maintain some type of magazine that would be an all encompassing edition instead of just completely wiping out the industry all together. Therefore, those who still love and crave the feeling of turning one page after another can hold on to that.
As technology enhances and people become more and more enveloped into this digital age, it is clear how any paper news sources, whether they be in a magazine or newspaper, will be used less and less. But I feel like magazines will last longer than newspapers because they apply to a larger age group. For this reason, I believe magazines should be continued and tailored for a niche audience who still commonly use this resource. Magazines can be enjoyable for lots of people because they have fun colors, pictures, and are more sleek than a newspaper. By not completely eradicating the magazine producers, some people will be able to hold onto this small piece of nostalgia. On the other hand, it is easy to say magazines should be removed because it wastes paper when the exact same information can be found instantly online. It is true that magazines aren’t crucial for informing the public, but at least magazines should stick around for waiting rooms and hair salons (as an example).
I enjoy reading magazines. However, with the advancements in technology today, more people find their information from the internet. This has caused the readership of magazines to fall drastically. I believe that what will help save some magazines will be that they are targeting a specific readership. This allows them to specialize in topics that are not found elsewhere. For example, RC magazines focus on what is happening in the RC world; thus, people who are interested in this topic usually buy this magazine to stay on top of new rules and new products available. Another example it the science journal and the journal about education. Each of these has a following that is specific to the topic. Magazines are expensive; therefore, many people chose not to buy them. However, when the magazine is focused on a topic that has a large following, they can expand their readership and survive the technology trend that is happening in today’s sociaty
If our news magazine is losing readership. I would try to focus my efforts on a niche audience. I would want to try a last-ditch effort to continue readership and try to gain other business as well. By focusing on a particular group of readers, you can tailor your magazine to that specific group and provide facts, products, and articles according to that group. If you pick a big enough readership group, you could potentially become popular enough to increase profits for our magazine company.
For example, the shooting community up here in Alaska is quite extensive, my household even receives them. This could be quite a lucrative type of magazine and you could also approach sponsors and have their advertisements ran in the magazine while generating a profit for our company.
As most have observed here, it is optimistic bordering on unreality to try to appeal to a global audience AND draw them away from the easy access and fast updates of the online world. And as many pointed out, this is another dilemma with the same deep roots. Our world is changing and most notably in communication and information access.
By focusing on what our particular clientele wants and supporting that online content with memorable, worthwhile published material, we stand the best chance of maximizing magazine sales.
I think that arguments on demassification are dependent on individual magazines and their history. I think that whether we reform the magazine into a niche magazine may be a bit more of a “last resort” thing. Depending on circumstances, we can look into redesigning our magazine or promoting different types of content.
When it comes to news magazines, having general content can be more beneficial than having specific, narrow topics because you may be able to reach a broader audience. If we have marketed the magazine in every way possible but we are still losing readership, I think creating a new magazine might be the way to go,
Honestly, it’s just really hard to argue a side for this without more detail and background because both sides are really dependent on more information like profits, circulation, expansions, etc.
In my opinion, if we are losing a substantial amount of readership I believe the best course of action for our magazine is to create something that is customized specifically for the consumers we still have. Compiling information about our readers and their interests would be a great start. Also seeing what’s currently out there, what the top rated magazines are, which topics are of most interest to consumers still purchasing magazines, etc. Maybe even exploring the option to sell both hard copy and digital versions would be an idea to look into. With all of the technology we have at our fingertips today, we would really have to put out a publication that people want to read, that’s distinctive from others out there, and that’s unique. We’d have to have the most fascinating articles, things that our competitors have yet to talk about.
Tailoring our magazine to target a specific audience would be the pertinent thing to do. As far as magazine’s go, I rarely see a magazine that doesn’t have a specific focus. For example, my dad is an avid hunter, so he subscribes to many hunting magazines because that’s something he enjoys looking at. Personally, I really like cars, so I’m subscribed to Car and Driver. My point is that people are more likely to buy something if it is specifically featuring an object or activity of interest to them. Granted, it does limit your overall audience, but by selecting a more popular subject, the magazine will still have a reasonably large of readers.
I think approaching this topic is similar to that of the newspaper topic, on whether or not it is worthwhile to keep it in business. My main concern here is that magazines will eventually not be able to make a profit, with everything being available online, and people being able to subscribe to these same magazines perhaps through internet and read immediately, instead of waiting on a physical copy. I think an argument against the demassification of magazines is in regards to job availability, but I think those who do have to find alternatives could possibly find better jobs as well. There are also those who would rather read a magazine in a physical copy rather than online, but with changing times it may be necessary. I would say for me, I would rather we use our resources online and take advantage of a generation of technological advancements, rather than continue down the road of printing magazines and possibly wasting paper. I think resorting to online use could also help our environments.
I feel like magazines are going through the same changes as the newspapers. I am not sure why our paper is losing readership or if a niche edition would be helpful because people can find information online for anything they are interested in. I don’t think demassification will make a difference because it seems like most magazines are already targeted to specific audiences anyway. Many current magazines have online editions and this may be the best route for our magazine. We can still have advertisers buy space and the overhead costs will be less with an online magazine than creating a physical magazine.
When considering if a magazine should change its focus to a more specialized subject matter, I believe the only answer is yes it should undergo demassification. This is due to the plethora of information available. Since information is so common in today’s world it stands to reason that more specialized information would be highly sought after. If such quality specialized information was published it is probable that the magazine would form a faithful following. I do think it would be wise to choose an area of specialization which is broad enough to ensnare a reasonably large reader base; thereby allowing further specialization for each issue. Furthermore, the subject matter should have enough “depth†to be marketable over a long time frame. For example, the magazine could focus on four-wheel drive vehicles, this would allow writers to talk about anything from Jeeps and Toyotas to custom made rock crawlers. Following this example, it would be unwise to devote an entire magazine to something as specialized as Willy’s Jeeps; while the audience would likely form a “cult following†it would be an unprofitable cult of 2 people.
Ted,
I agree with your stance on this question, and that could stem from the fact that I too favor niche magazines and the content produced by specialized producers. I think you make a good point in indicating that subjects should be niche, but still broad enough to reach an audience in order to remain profitable. My question is, do you think that a small community of people could still manage to circulate a magazine, despite popular demand? Such as a local magazine, something that would only be applicable to a small audience or group of people.
Magazines, much like newspapers, are a dying form of media. With the power of the internet, and our connectivity through our smart devices, readers no longer need to seek out a magazine. Today we can simply google any question we have, and find the answer in many forms of media. For our failing magazine company, it doesn’t make any sense to focus on the general news. The general news is too broad for our readers, which will make it tough to sell subscriptions and sell magazines. This loss of sales will require our pages to fill more with ads and less with meaningful content. If we tailor our magazine for a niche audience, it will allow our magazine to narrow its focus on news material. By narrowing our material, we can target a specific audience, and cater to their needs. Our readers will really benefit from this as they no longer will have to flip through general news in search of a story they are interested in. Instead, all stories are relevant to what the reader is wanting to learn about. If these changes lead to more readers, then it presents an opportunity to remove unwanted ads from our newspaper which is something all readers enjoy. For the ads that we do run, it allows us to be more selective and run advertisements for companies and products that really pertain to our readers interests, making them more tolerable for the reader. With the internet taking over, it seems the only way for magazines to make it anymore is to tailor to the niche audience. In the end, the question really is, “do we want to lose our magazine, or keep it alive by tailoring to a niche audience?†By narrowing our focus, we may lose general news, but at least we will still have a magazine to print.
Similarly to newspapers, it is obvious that magazines are also losing readership. However, when a niche subject is discovered, and can be supported by an audience, I actually believe it to be worth continuing to print magazines. Could be personal bias, as I personally do enjoy reading magazines, especially those about travel as well as architectural design. Some may argue that the internet provides the same information as magazines, but I believe that magazines provide more stability than online articles and blogs. The tangible aspect is a reason that I do like magazines, it is easier to tear out specific articles or ‘how-tos,’ a way to stay more present in the subject, rather than clicking through tabs. The content in magazines sticks with you longer I think, and allows readers to be more present, versus an online audience where instant gratification is obvious. Magazine editions take time to procure and produce. While online content also takes time and effort, the printing process and distribution waiting period is what I think makes magazines more anticipated.
Personally, I think the best option is tailoring a magazine to a niche audience. I am much more likely to buy a magazine tailored to my interests. If I use myself as an example, I still subscribe and receive magazines about jeep modifications and parts, home and garden, and fitness. I read these magazines on a monthly basis when I receive them because it fits my interests. I would be less likely to read a magazine with a variety of topics. I think magazines tailored to specific audiences are more likely to maintain readership. I think there are still people that would prefer a hard copy magazine over an online version. There is more information online, it is easier to access, and it is faster than waiting on a magazine; however, I think most people that read magazines are reading for leisure, not specifically looking for any specific information.
I agree with your thoughts on reading what is tailored to ones needs. However, I do disagree that people read magazines for leisure and not for specific information. While I am sure the vast majority does not read for specific information, magazines are still a go to for teachers. They help bring motivation to the younger generation even if they do not admit it at first. They are also a gate way to spike interest in the younger generation just as the ads on mobile devices do.
An argument in favor of demassification is that the brake down of an industry or company, such as a news magazine, allows said company to capitalize on a specific audience and hopefully be seen as a sort of ‘specialist’ in that topic or genre. Being versatile and adaptive is vital to the success of a company when demassifying. Look at what the ‘radio’ did in the 1950’s. Those in that business had to adapt to the new changes in media, some were successful and some were not. Radio stations had to completely change the way they did things. They had to target specific audiences in order to be successful. If a magazine company properly uses demassification they can bring in more readers, however, if they fail so would their company.
For this “news magazine†to prosper and gain readership, I argue that it should change and target a smaller audience with a specific tailored genre. I know this comes with it challenges and the possibility of destroying the company, but with the right visionaries and ideas it could prove to be a better, more notable magazine. I don’t argue to keep it the same because, for one, that rarely works for companies, and two, clearly it is not working out if the magazine is loosing readership.
I believe we should start creating magazines tailored for niche audiences. I think this because magazines are seeming to become less and less popular, so it would make more sense to have a specific audience opposed to a general audience because people in a general audience are not likely to read or get magazines consistently, especially with how accessible the internet makes most knowledge that can be found in magazines. Also, if this new magazine becomes a success, we could consider creating more magazines for different niche audiences to increase our profit.
Personally, I believe that we should be creating magazines made for niche audiences. For example, Boys Life Magazine is made for a niche audience of Boy Scouts. If we were able to create a magazine that was fit for a group of interests that was only allowed a few advertisements I believe it would bring a good profit. In today’s life yes just about everything is accessible online however, there are so many adds. Even when you search for something online it is hard to find it without things popping up on the screen. Also, a magazine has the best protection of preventing a computer virus because the consumer would be flipping through pages instead.
Trisha, try using Opera. It blocks ads and popups
I believe that magazines are losing sales because you can find most things online for free. Why pay for something if you can get it free. I used to buy magazines when I was young, but I think the last time I bought one was years ago in an airport. It was only because I needed to waste some time – I sleep on planes so I only bought it for the airport wait. However, most of the time, I do not have much of an airport wait – I am usually the person rushing to catch the plane before I miss it! I believe it would be better to create a magazine tailored to a niche market, and then depending on how sales were affected, it could be reversed or set in stone. When I did buy magazines, it was for teen fashion. By having a niche magazine any sales should be constant, plus advertisements and magazine content will be relevant to the reader, and they will probably receive more attention. Moreover, the magazines could have a longer shelf life, meaning less are returned.
I think a niche audience is the way to go with magazines nowadays. The goals are changing it is no longer getting a mass audience it about an engaged audience and a niche audience is the best way to do that. More engagement equals more money form adds which will make up for the lower sales. Like anything, it can not hurt to go online to increase exposer and make more money that way. So that why I think a niche audience is the way to go for us.
It seems as though we agree on the niche audience being the way to continue for magazines. Although, I am also inclined to agree with you on increasing online exposure. We just found out the the Boy Scout magazine has an app for games to go along with the magazine. In a way this app being shared on Facebook is free publicity there by promoting the magazine.
I think that the magazine should be changed to fit a niche audience. When magazines are to general, it is difficult for people to find interest in them because half of what is written about does not interest them. The media already supplies tons of general information which is easily accessible. I think for a magazine to be truly successful, it would need to pick an avenue and stick with it, market to their target clientele, and focus on expanding their brand within that category.
I believe that magazines have been losing readership for a long time now. To try to increase readers some businesses give magazines away as a reward. Walmart for example, I bought a wax candle burner and inside was a year membership to a magazine subscription. Verizon as well, they reward you different magazines are rewards. I got excited for all of these free magazines and I’ve even bought some from thrift stores for baking recipes. In all honestly, they’re all collecting dust in my living room tv stand. The best thing to do would be to tailored for a niche audience. No matter what people say we always get busy and that’s okay. Since we’ll in the internet for most of our news. It’ll be better to transition to online.
Since magazines have been moving toward specialization since after World War II to meet the consumer demand, we certainly need to make this switch. The market is very strong for magazines with 90% of American adults reading them and that percentage increasing with people under 25. Unlike newspapers, magazines are a strong format both digitally and physically. So if our magazine is not successful, it is not because of uncontrollable market forces. It is due to us not providing what the readers want. By breaking our audience into smaller groups, we will be able to more closely tailor our content to what they want. This is certainly not a new trend and this move will allow us to provide more relevant content to a small devoted group of people instead of irrelevant content to a large group of people.
Just as a side note, the book does not contain the word “demassification” in it.
If a magazine is losing readership, it is clear that something needs to change in order for that said magazine to stay in business. In order to keep a healthy supply of readers, I would vote to change the magazine in order to focus on a specific audience that would continue to buy and read the magazine based on the content designed to target them. Ultimately, this discussion comes down to how to keep a growing audience and if the original content is no longer appealing, then it needs to change.
I think one of the reason why magazine losing leadership is because they are expensive. And people are practical that why would pay for a hard copy of magazine when they can check it online too. This generation usually relying on the internet now, and it is easier for them to access it. I think magazine companies needs to change their way of selling their magazines, or give the audience at least an option to see it online, or have the physical copy in that way they are not losing that lot of money.
Information can be found in a number of ways, finding magazines to lose leadership. With consumer demand, magazines are much more favored than newspapers. If magazines are losing success, it’s due to the struggle of catering to a larger audience. If magazines are aimed at a smaller audience, it would allow little room for error and give the readers more of what they are looking for. This allows magazine companies to profit on a smaller group of people. If they find themselves not being as successful as planned, it’s due to the lack of acknowledgement on what their readers want. Adjustments will always have to be made to ensure success.
When I was younger I couldn’t wait to get my monthly subscription to whatever magazine I had signed up for the year previously. I would read it over and over again and then eventually re-purpose it into whatever I was in to at the time, collages, decorating something, or hanging pictures on the wall. I think with the increasing popularity of social media and the Internet, magazines are slowly dying off. Although, portable, and interest specific, it seems we can find just about anything from social groups to blogs that are offered for free on the Internet. Another consideration in light of the COVID19 pandemic, is places that typically have magazines on the table to thumb through to pass the time for patients have now done away with that to lessen touch points and promote safety for patients. I wonder how this has affected the industry as a whole recently?
In my opinion, it is best to publish a magazine for a specific niche. According to our reading, the magazines catering to a particular demographic were most successful. The next question is, do you publish a paper magazine or do you produce an online magazine. Publish the paper magazine; it is cheaper on the front end. On page 109 of our book, two magazines went entirely online with their magazines. Even with a substantial audience, they were not profitable for approximately ten years. The competition was plenty and fierce. To be successful in the magazine the industry, it seems the best option is to publish a paper magazine focused on a specific demographic.
Switching to a niche audience might be the best thing. Or maybe changing things up to make it more interesting. Put some advertising in with the articles that draw the eye, maybe add some art, some color.
If the decision is to go with a niche audience there is a risk the number of sales will decrease farther. Though there is a chance the niche that is chosen may increase the numbers. Everything is a gamble, it’s how the cards are played.
Either way if the numbers are decreasing something needs to change.
I believe it is time we move to a more specialized area of interest for our magazine. If we can transform our publication into a specific interest magazine for those of certain lifestyles, we will be much more successful at gaining readership among a smaller demographic. What we need is a specific target audience to cater to, and then way we can tailor our content to provide the readers with a fresh, new look on something we know will be of interest to them, rather than a shot-in-the-dark publication covering a wide variety of news and interests.
Magazines concerning today’s changing culture become more successful when personalized to niche audiences. Trying to craft a magazine that is entertaining and fits multiple persons wants is incredibly difficult and something that a lot of fellow magazine companies have found nearly impossible. Our best bet in keeping this company running is to personalize our material to a certain audience. This way we can grow our number in readers.
If our magazine is losing readership, then it is time to make a change. How do we determine what the best change would be?
Let’s investigate the option of tailoring for a niche audience. While this might seem to narrow down our available market, it would probably allow us to stand out to a specific crowd. The toughest part would be to find an unexplored or underexplored niche. Once that is located then we can expand our readership to fill our buyer’s needs. If we can make the transition smoothly, we might even be able to keep a good majority of our current readers who already rely upon our publication for information. It has been indicated that the total readership of magazines is increasing (Baran, S. J. (2019). Introduction to mass communication: Media literacy and culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.), so losing readership is on us not finding what our readers are looking for. If we narrow our focus and concentrate on the basics of a specific niche, that will help to lay a solid foundation of readership that we can then build and expand our topics at a later date if we see a benefit in doing so.
We are losing readership, and we must adapt to overcome. If our magazine is too broad to be on interest to readers then we should narrow our subjects and target a niche market. There are niche markets that are and always will be popular, and if we survey consumers we can find emerging markets that would be on interest and have little competition. If we target a specific audience and we continually supply relevant articles and interesting information then our market should remain open and loyal. Currently we could explore markets of accurate accounts of history, holidays that we should celebrate instead of ones we are familiar with, what they didn’t tell us in history class, how successful change has been brought in the past. The key is to find something that can be ongoing, and sustainable with a large and/or loyal market. Being able to adapt content to stay relevant, but also keep current readers while attracting new readers.
If the magazine is losing readership then something is working and change needs to come. Changing the magazine to tailor for a niche audience would be the best option. Not only choosing more specific topics but just choosing what’s most popular or most talked about during that time would bring in readers. Adapting and creating fresh popular content would not only bring back old readers but bring in a new audience as a whole.
If the magazine readership is suffering, some changes should be made. A magazine tailored for niche audiences would be a better fit. Many magazines like this already exist and have dedicated readers. For instance, I’m subscribed to a video game magazine while my wife is subscribed to a home renovation magazine. My wife doesn’t like video games so she has no interest in my magazine. I enjoy looking at homes and seeing renovations so I have an interest in her magazine. I probably wouldn’t subscribe to a video game and home renovation magazine. Instead I would opt to subscribe to separate magazines for more specific articles. So while you would reach less people overall, you would have more dedicated and interested readers with a more niche magazine.
Tailoring a magazine to a niche market gains you a guaranteed readership in some way. Marketing these in such a fashion would provide a more stable market for the magazine company as they provide an audience with information that they themselves want to hear or read more about. Producing a magazine with split topics would prevent people from subscribing to them as they are likely to be less interested in the other topics being discussed within, however, if it were a magazine that caters to their interest and solely their interest they would be more likely to subscribe and keep a subscription so long as the information stays relevant or their interests change. It helps to have magazines with multiple forms of delivery options ranging from physical to e-copies. Overall, you’d have a much more stable readership, but you also risk limiting your market reach.
Our news magazine is losing readership. We need to decide if we’re going to keep it or create a magazine that is tailored for a niche audience? What arguments are there for and against demassification? Pick a side and argue your point.
I would decide to demassify the magazine. This does not necessarily mean that I would scratch the magazine and start a new one with a finer targeted audience but I would branch many “small” magazines from it. I think that, for most businesses to survive, they need to adapt to their audience as they change. Most magazines these days are a central magazine (such as the NY Times) with many specific topics. If you go to the website there are 19 different categories that you can choose from where there are hundreds/thousands of articles related to that subject. It’s incredible actually.
If the magazine is losing readership then, change needs to come. Changing the magazine to tailor for a niche audience would be the best option. Have a magazine that is relevant to what’s going on at that moment of time. Find a specific group of people we want to target and have a magazine designed for them. Do we want to target younger readers or older readers? There’s so many things readers are interested, fashion, art, cars, home improvement, and tattoos/arts and craft. The cover needs to be something that catches the readers eyes when they look at it and not just the covers but the articles inside as well. I would also do paper magazine because you know how many times I have stood in line waiting to check out at the register, I see a magazine that catches my eyes and I end up buying it.
My opinion is to change the magazine to draw in a niche audience. This is because it is hard to try and fit lots of different content into one magazine each month. By determining and allocating resources to one audience, you typically create a better magazine which in turn draws in more customers. The business is able to search and draw in specialized writers which is helpful in recruitment because the writer will know exactly what they will be working on all the time. This concept is already prevalent within the magazine industry. The industry specializes in a topic such as sports, food, knitting, or whatever else you can think of. Therefore, it would be best to find your own niche instead of trying to fight all the personalized magazines for customers.
I would say transitioning to a niche magazine would be the best route, as readership is dwindling and targeting a specific audience could help us to boost readership. In my experience, I only ever read magazines if they are niche magazines on a specific interest of mine. For example, when I’m at airports I sometimes glance over at magazines for sale and if I see one that focuses on a topic I’m interested in I may buy it. That way, I have something interesting to read while waiting before or during the flight. Usually I would just use my phone or whatever reading material I brought with me, however, niche magazines are much more likely to catch my interest than a normal magazine.
If magazines are losing readers then making magazines specific is a good idea. If readers are losing interest it is obvious that the magazine needs to keep up with its audience, their interests are what pull them into buying magazines. Hunting, cars, home makeovers, or whatever the consumer wants is how to keep consumers reading and possibly get others to also read.
Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better!
Reading through this post reeminds me of my good old room mate!
He always kept chatting about this. I will forwasrd this article to him.
Fairly certain he will have a goiod read. Many thanks for
sharing!
my web page :: excel dashboard certification
Due to their usually being released on a bi-weekly or weekly basis, the crowded state of the mass media world today, the newfound questions of how to maintain circulation, and the availability of any general information on the internet for free, I believe that magazines without specialization are businesses doomed to fail. They are not as available or as broadly scoped as other mediums, and the entire reason their business model is succeeding is the ease of their online convergence, and their demassification. To survive the medium had to adapt to a fragmented audience and it became the medium best situated to cover a niche readership, so not taking advantage of that opportunity that the market has allotted magazines would cause profitability to be near impossible. Why would you want to compete on the largest possible scale when you already had a less competitive corner carved out for you? News coverage is for mediums that can give regular and immediate updates, and magazines are far more suited to being the most specialized and least widely applicable medium.
Like!! Thank you for publishing this awesome article.
I really like and appreciate your blog post.
A big thank you for your article.
Good one! Interesting article over here. It’s pretty worth enough for me.
Your site is very helpful. Many thanks for sharing!
Please keep your magazine as it is now. If you had to make changes and work on a particular niche, I would like to read more about “education”. I found this website really helpful.
We appreciate your effort and asking our suggestions before making any changes. thanks a million.
Thanks for sharing.
Provides complementary IELTS Sample Test Material to practice for IELTS test if you prepare the test with us.
Prepare IELTS Reading test with us to become a good reader.
Great Article.
Tips and tricks to become good listeners.
Thanks for sharing the content, Really Helpful.