Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Sep 20, 2010 at 8:59am
Here at Ricochet, we've circled back a few times to two apparently unrelated questions: What's wrong with Time magazine? And: Why don't we care more about the dire situation in Pakistan?
Today, via Ricochet member Pascal, we have something resembling a single answer:
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
A lifetime ago I worked on the international business side of TIME so I actually know a little bit about this. The company has hard objective evidence of what sells magazines and subscriptions and what does not. And there is no political bias whatsoever. I have no doubt that in the U.S. many, many more people want to read what makes a school great than about how the end of the world will begin in Pakistan. And that won't change if they write about Pakistan more. Anyway I'm quite sure the Pakistan article is inside the U.S. edition in any case.
Aug '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
Awhile ago the Onion had a video feature on Time magazine's plans to create an edition aimed at adults
May '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
Sad, but ultimately beneficial. If the cover results in more Americans buying the magazine, that's more people who will read the Pakistan story.
Well, it's beneficial if the Pakistan article is worthwhile, anyway.
Then again, there is also a potential benefit when editors encourage readers to consider some stories as being more important than others, though that benefit is somewhat nebulous. The point is that TIME is not necessarily wrong for changing covers.
Edited on Sep 20, 2010 at 12:44pmMay '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
The US edition seems to be the only single-nation edition shown. They can cater to a single national audience. Those international editions call for an international story; why else would someone in Asia read Time?
Also, the school issue isn't treated like such a huge mystery in most other countries.
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
Two questions, Trace: 1. Although Time never went quite as far in this direction as Newsweek, it seems in recent years to have become more overtly liberal--there are one or two conservative columnists in each issue, but they swim in a liberal sea. Could that possibly reflect the business research? Or is it that the research gets refracted through the political outlook of the journalists? 2. The Economist must have the same business research, right? But even though The Economist's principal market is the U.S., it remains heavy--sometimes, to my mind, numbingly so; I really don't care to read yet another article, for instance, on Swaziland--on foreign coverage. Does The Economist know something Time doesn't? Could Time have addressed the market for serious coverage first, keeping The Economist from expanding in this country--and preserving its self-respect?
May '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
I canceled my Time subscription 4 yrs ago because of what was obviously a new editorial decision (probably driven by marketing): They began advocating. That is, nearly every article's headline would take the form of identifying a problem and then proposing a solution.
For instance (paraphrasing): "Bush's Iraq Problem: Here's a Way Out." or "Our Environmental Crisis: Here's What You Can Do to Help." or "5 Movies You Should See." or "Our Complex Tax Code and How to Simplify It." Etc.
I wanted reporting, not advice (and certainly not bad advice--e.g., they suggested Bush follow the Iraq Study Group instead of surging troops), and Time's assumption that I would want its advice on every issue big and small was insulting.
May '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
Peter -- There is a great deal of focus-grouping and it influences editorial decisions only to the extent that the editors want lmore people to read the magazine. That work is what undoubtedly led to the approach that Scott describes. But I'm more inclined to think that what you perceive as a liberal bias is more likely the result of the edit staffs living inside the insulated bubble of Manhattan. I would guess that they've studiously avoid asking consumers any questions that would expose their political bias. They don't really want to know.
Funny you ask about the Economist. That publication has been endlessly studied by the newsweeklies. It's numbers are still very small in the US, but its demographic is very attractive. As a business it's brilliant. They notoriously don't check any facts so their edit costs are miniscule. The research that I saw in the 1990's suggested that most subscribers don't actually read the magazine. They just like the statement it makes about who they are -- it makes them feel good about themselves and they believe it impresses their friends and neighbors (and fellow strap-hangers).
Jun '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
In Asia, Time is marketed to parents who want their kids to learn English. And why anyone cares about the international editions I don't know. Lower print run every year, thin mag, and nothing breaking.
Time will be last man standing for US news magazines, along with Businessweek which Bloomberg uses as a marketing tool and Forbes which makes it's money as a conference arranger. Real king remains Economist.
May '10
Re: Dumb Audience, Dumb Media: A Chicken and Egg Problem?
mark simon: In Asia, Time is marketed to parents who want their kids to learn English. And why anyone cares about the international editions I don't know. Lower print run every year, thin mag, and nothing breaking.
Time will be last man standing for US news magazines, along with Businessweek which Bloomberg uses as a marketing tool and Forbes which makes it's money as a conference arranger. Real king remains Economist. · Sep 20 at 7:47pm
Mark -- Asia is where I spent most of my brief Time Inc. career and just to be safe I looked at the most recent ABC data. TIME Asia + Time SoPac is about 4x the size of the Economist circulation in the comparable region. In East Asia TIME is 300K (Economist break this region out.) TIME is not intended for native English-speaking ex-pats, nor is it, as you suggest only read by students. It is for non-native English speakers.
The Economist by contrast is a status symbol. But within a socio-economic class below the one I'm guessing you inhabit, so is TIME. The Economist is merely high-opinion, low-fact punditry and for that I prefer Ricochet.