Comments on: Cultural Upheaval: It’s Still Print vs. Online As Major Magazines Go Digital

By: Peter Ericson

Peter Ericson — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 02:15:32 +0000

How about the youngsters that are in their 30′s and don’t buy newspapers and are letting their magazine subscriptions lapse?

Flipboard and Pulse on my iPad are amazing ways to read about all the subjects I care about (content aggregation) and print just can’t do it.

As creatures of habit we will eventually only want to review our documents/news/magazines in one spot and the iPad is dang close.

Thanks for introducing me to “vestigial elitism” I will use that again
Pete

By: Reaction to "Magazines: The Power of Print" | Trade Secrets

Reaction to "Magazines: The Power of Print" | Trade Secrets — Wed, 19 May 2010 00:38:41 +0000

[...] Kent Anderson in the blog the Scholarly Kitchen: “With the iPad only weeks away from shipping, it’s an odd time for magazine publishers to spend $90 million to very publicly throw their digital editions under the bus.” [...]

By: Traditional Measures of Quality: Irrelevant, Miscast, Outdated, and Inhibiting? « The Scholarly Kitchen

Wed, 05 May 2010 09:45:15 +0000

[...] In a related post, I noted how many of the findings and attitudes in the study smacked of “vestig…. [...]

By: Update: The Power of Print! (As Seen on YouTube) « The Scholarly Kitchen

Update: The Power of Print! (As Seen on YouTube) « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:22:38 +0000

[...] | Tags: Advertising, magazines, publishing, YouTube | Leave a Comment Yesterday, I published an analysis of the “Power of Print” advertising blitz that just kicked off, to the tune of $90 million. As part of the onslaught, the publishers put this rather bombastic [...]

By: thorn

thorn — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:43:11 +0000

..perhaps a prehensile elitism, clinging to print?

a large problem with print, is that the back-issues stack can grow very large. then what. then it will fall on you and kill you?

the backfile may be fun to browse, but what if you’re looking for a specific article? seriously, electronic (web, downloads to a reader, even CD-ROM or DVD for heaven’s sake) is the only way to go for back-issue management. those magazine box-thingies you can get at office depot are ugly, expensive, and never seem to take up less space on the shelf over time. if a publication is ‘important’, mightn’t it also be worth keeping? since print is always late anyway, shouldn’t the content remain relevant for some time — even as a snapshot of how we were thinking when it was published? seriously. since when does ‘more important’ mean ‘stuff you have to throw away before you have to rent a storage unit’?

numerous models for managing this exist in our world. those publications that don’t choose one are almost certain to be featured at some point on the ‘magazine death pool’ blog — http://www.magazinedeathpool.com/