Is print doomed? At this speed, it is….

My point/counterpoint with John Griffin of National Geographic responding to the question, “Is print dead?”, is finally online, a month after it came out in print.

  • Good conversation, Jeff.

  • pt

    i love national geo, i look foward to when they add rss feeds their main pages, add a blog, podcasts, video podcasts, post photos in flickr, what they’re reading in and share their dna with devotees like me who joined their brand before i could read. that said, i try and sculpt the things i do on around what i’d like all publications to consider. we’re a magazine too, but it’s hard to tell where our print efforts begin and end, along with where our online efforts begin and end. this week we rolled out an instant message “bot” that is basically an interface to our brand, all via aol instant messenger. add makebot to your aim buddy list and have fun….thanks for the link to this article, good stuff.

  • David Neudorfer

    Good points made here, but I don’t think that “community discussion” (and the benefits that come from it) outweigh the value of trusted brands, which are known to be providers of deeply researched subject matter that is desired by and PAID FOR by 10’s of millions of magazine subscribers. And, advertisers agree. Follow the money trail… and where the revenue comes from. If bloggers were in such high demand… they’d be milionaires one and all… and sought out as product endorsers by advertisres – wink

    100’s and thousands of consumer and trade magazines have been able to attract critical masses of demographically similar readers, who can — in a time efficient matter — extract what’s important to them from magazines, without having to take loads of time to filter through useful AND tons of useless e-pinions on the net. Who has the time anymore?

    The internet is a great source of varied information (some credible and some not) and functions as a personal librarian. But few people have the time to devote to endless searches. They want their information boiled down and delivered in a concise way by trusted media sources. In any event… one compliments the other… and the media forms should be used thusly.

    Though expressed through the same medium, Cable TV was originally criticized in some similar ways… Some wondered if Cable would be the end of Network TV. It simply provides greater choice and information-specific programming for information specific interests. The downside with 150+ Cable choices is that viewer loyalty has been diluted and individual audiences have been dramatically decreased (not everyone wants to watch fishing shows.)

    Consquently, mass marketers have found it to be increasingly complex and difficult to create big, robust, far reaching media plans… which are also targeted to a reasonable degree.

    Bottom line… Network TV, Cable TV, Magazines and the Internet provide alternatives and solutions together, that none can provide alone.

    So… It’s not either / or IMHO… And silly to suggest that any one medium would / should replace another.