…I would’ve expected something, well, a lot less half-baked than the wimpy, weak-on-detail, so-called announcement that came out on Tuesday. From a publication that prides itself on carving through spin, it was embarrassing—a misleading headline that said, “Adweek to Expand on Digital Offering,” on top of a “story” which left until the end of the third paragraph that little side-note about the powers-that-be cutting the weekly down to 36 issues a year.
Taylor thinks Adweek could achieve more by moving to a monthly print run.
I think pulling back on print is absolutely the right move, but, if it were me, I’d pull back even further. Hell, I’d make the print issue a monthly. Media consumption is a habit, and that alone makes the 36-issues-a-year gambit awkward. What is habit-forming about a magazine, that might—or might not—publish on a given week? The random nature of when these issues are coming out diminishes their value. A monthly might have the opposite effect, making the the print issue more of an event for subscribers and advertisers. It also would free up more resources for online, and would give the print issues a concerted focus on in-depth reporting, a real contrast to what the Adweek Web site—or Ad Age—currently provides.
By the way, George Parker also weighed in with this bit:
…why can’t you just say AdAge is kicking your arse and you can’t make any money? We are all in the communications business, we can smell bullshit and spin a mile away. No wonder these people are fucked.
I remember a time not so long ago when I preferred the print version of Adweek to Ad Age. But that changed and now I rarely touch either title in print—a fact that, if true for others, might mean Adweek’s “enhanced digital offering” will be welcomed. They are the superior media company when it comes to blahgs (thanks to Catharine P. Taylor’s leadership in that area, and the continued work of notable writers like Tim Nudd). Of course, that only’s only one indicator. The battle of ad rag brands is bigger than that.