Bass Player RIP...

[HolmeBass]

Advertising doesn't work that way. Not even close. It is specifically designed so that yiu don't even know you're participating.

Subscription fees are a drop in the bucket compared to ad revenue.

And it's all psychology. The ads are trying to convince you to buy something using psychology. The magazine is trying to convince their clients that magizine ads are the reason for their success. The client is trying to convince the magazine that they only "kind of" need to place ads with them.

Make no mistake, my friend. YOU are not their customer for buying their magazine for a buck ninety nine per issue. Ampeg and Fender and Warmoth and GK and Bass Central and GC and Hipshot and Aguilar are their most important customers because they place ads for thousands per issue.

You have the relationship backwards and don't even know it.

So, I own Acme Bass Guitar company. I have been placing a $27,000 ad every month for a decade. I call BP Mag and tell them I want them to do "XYZ". The "end user" (that would be you) would rather the magazine do "ABC". You think they are going to tell the CEO of Acme "We can't do XYZ because that would slightly inconvenience our readers!!!"???

Uh. No. Not happening.

You were never their customer. You were an excuse for Acme to run ads with the magazine. The magazine was only a method by which Acme got directly to your eyes.

BP making you think the content was all about you was what we called in the ad business "the dance". You can never lead. The magazine (or TV station, or web site, or radio station) ALWAYS leads the dance.

So you think Ampeg told them not to create an index of their past issues? Really?? Why not? I would think any ancillary web content that would drive eyes to the magazine (like an index would) would be a plus from the advertiser's perspective, not a minus. I can't see how it could possibly hurt.

Again, once the magazine is delivered/sold, the ad revenue is collected. There are no residuals in print advertising.

I understand the majority of their revenue comes from advertising. And ad revenue is based on circulation. The higher the circulation, the more they can charge for an inch. The hardest circulation numbers a magazine has are its *subscriptions*. Those are the bedrock of their advertising revenue stream. So again you are wrong because I understand that their advertisers are their customers, but so are their subscribers and magazine purchasers. Without us, there is no ad revenue. So serving the readership should be an important part of their business, not just selling ads. Keeping readers engaged is a huge part of the equation.

And they could very easily have an index which would help keep readers, especially long-time readers, engaged. And evidently I'm not the only one who feels that way. Instead they are cheapening everything in a cost-cutting race to the bottom. They will go out of business that way.

They could listen to you, who didn't even know they were still publishing, or they could listen to me and others who still subscribe. Because when they lose their last subscription, they're out of business. You can't publish a magazine on newsstand sales alone, not these days.

 

[two fingers]

So you think Ampeg told them not to create an index of their past issues? Really?? Why not? I would think any ancillary web content that would drive eyes to the magazine (like an index would) would be a plus from the advertiser's perspective, not a minus. I can't see how it could possibly hurt.

Again, once the magazine is delivered/sold, the ad revenue is collected. There are no residuals in print advertising.

I understand the majority of their revenue comes from advertising. And ad revenue is based on circulation. The higher the circulation, the more they can charge for an inch. The hardest circulation numbers a magazine has are its *subscriptions*. Those are the bedrock of their advertising revenue stream. So again you are wrong because I understand that their advertisers are their customers, but so are their subscribers and magazine purchasers. Without us, there is no ad revenue. So serving the readership should be an important part of their business, not just selling ads. Keeping readers engaged is a huge part of the equation.

And they could very easily have an index which would help keep readers, especially long-time readers, engaged. And evidently I'm not the only one who feels that way. Instead they are cheapening everything in a cost-cutting race to the bottom. They will go out of business that way.

They could listen to you, who didn't even know they were still publishing, or they could listen to me and others who still subscribe. Because when they lose their last subscription, they're out of business. You can't publish a magazine on newsstand sales alone, not these days.

No, Ampeg didn't tell them what to do, per say. It was more likely an understood arrangement where both parties knew that they would both do things that would intentionally lead you, the reader, down the path they wanted you to go.

As for "residuals", well of course there were. The redisuals were you and other readers buying stuff advertised in the magazine.... therefore forcing the clients to buy even more ads. Repeat business is the residual. Duh.

Companies buying ads didn't just assume any results from the ad would only come within days of the rag hitting newsstands. No, far from it. They were/are in it for the long game.

Let me just say it this way. You and I can go back and forth all day about the nuances of asvertising. Only one of us has been in that game.

There is NOTHING magazines, newspapers, TV or radio that is done by accident. And not much of it at all is done to "enhance the experience of the end user". It is mostly done to get your eyes and ears where ad guys want them. More recently, the internet is the same.

None of it is about content other than to the extent that it leads you down that path.

Your favorite radio station doesn't give away tickets to show appreciation for its listeners. Nope. They give away tickets so that you'll listen for the "phrase that pays". And while you're listening for that phrase, you're also listening to commercials.

Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING in media is by accident. Your favorite "indie" artist doesn't do anything by accident. What your favorite athelete says in an interview is not by accident.

Nothing.

Here's the wildest part. DJs don't even know they're doing it when they're doing it. They just think it's "radio tradition". Writers at BP mag probanly think they are being given artistic license to write content readers will enjoy. But the editor and publisher are making them dance too. The program director in radio? Yep.

So, again, in NO MEDIA (with the possible exception of some .... very few.... books and maybe a painting) is the goal EVER to simply put out the best content for the reader, listener or viewer and nothing else. If that media makes it to the public, it has been filtered through the executives and has been given another goal. And that goal almost always has something to do with revenue OTHER THAN the sale of or subscription to that media.

So, in my view, you are simply incorrect. It is not as simple as "I paid for it, so I should be able to access it however I like. The information is mine. I bought it." No. Not even close. The content is secondary..... and not even a close second.

The only reason there even is a subscription price for magazines is because that keeps EVERYONE from getting it, even if only to use it to level table legs. (Much like charging a cover charge at the door keeps the "riff raff" out.)

Try this. Go back through your old BP mags. Look for the full-page ads by the largest companies. Try to establish patterns as to WHERE those ads are and what content is on the pages before and after. I bet you won't be through the thrid magazine before you have established patterns and probably figured out what content readers said they turned to first. If there's a full-page ad from Fender, Ampeg, GK, etc., you can believe whatever is near that ad is a hot topic. And readers have filled out surveys and told them it's the hot topic. Amd the WHOME POINT of those surveys was never to "enhance content". It was to determine which pages they ciukd charge the most for. We did it with Arbitron ratings in radio. Hot morning shows and afternoon commute shows were the highest priced ad times. Duh. In my area, I couldn't give away ads during lunch time. Why? Rush Limbaugh. (That's not a political statement. He just killed in every demographic almost in an area with half a dozen military bases.) My new rock and classic rock stations had nothing for him at noon. The only other stations that sold during that time were mom rock and pop music stations.

Ever wonder how Publisher's Clearing House could offer 10 subscriptions for a whole year for some ridiculously low price? It's because the money from subscriptions was never factored in to begin with. Heck, PCH probably got to keep most or all of that money.

Read Men's Health sometime. It's one big ad. One month you read how avocados are the new super food and will prevent heart attacks. The next month you read how avocados are one of the foods that are sneaking fat into your diet and adding inches to your belly.

The publisher doesn't care. It doesn't matter. The whole point of that rag is the PERCEPTION that by reading it, you'll become healthier. The whole point of that PERCEPTION is to guide you to the ad for the newest hippest watch or protein bar... or car... or fashion brand. It never was about making you healthier to begin with. Sure, the writers think they are literally saving our lives and doing a service to humanity. The publisher needs them to think that so they are emotionally vested in the content... which isn't about content.

Most of the people I see reading Men's Health couldn't run 100 yards if they were being chased by a bear.

The whole point of BP was the PERCEPTION that you'll become a better bass player for having read it. (I never got any better at anything from reading a magazine. I read Tennis magazine for a decade. I bought really nice tennis shoes and gear. I never scored once based on something in an article.) The whole point of that perception was to sell ads.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend. These are just my opinions. Take them for what they are worth.... exactly zero.

Here's hoping you get the next few issues you paid for.

 

[HolmeBass]

No, Ampeg didn't tell them what to do, per say. It was more likely an understood arrangement where both parties knew that they would both do things that would intentionally lead you, the reader, down the path they wanted you to go.

As for "residuals", well of course there were. The redisuals were you and other readers buying stuff advertised in the magazine.... therefore forcing the clients to buy even more ads. Repeat business is the residual. Duh.

Companies buying ads didn't just assume any results from the ad would only come within days of the rag hitting newsstands. No, far from it. They were/are in it for the long game.

Let me just say it this way. You and I can go back and forth all day about the nuances of asvertising. Only one of us has been in that game.

There is NOTHING magazines, newspapers, TV or radio that is done by accident. And not much of it at all is done to "enhance the experience of the end user". It is mostly done to get your eyes and ears where ad guys want them. More recently, the internet is the same.

None of it is about content other than to the extent that it leads you down that path.

Your favorite radio station doesn't give away tickets to show appreciation for its listeners. Nope. They give away tickets so that you'll listen for the "phrase that pays". And while you're listening for that phrase, you're also listening to commercials.

Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING in media is by accident. Your favorite "indie" artist doesn't do anything by accident. What your favorite athelete says in an interview is not by accident.

Nothing.

Here's the wildest part. DJs don't even know they're doing it when they're doing it. They just think it's "radio tradition". Writers at BP mag probanly think they are being given artistic license to write content readers will enjoy. But the editor and publisher are making them dance too. The program director in radio? Yep.

So, again, in NO MEDIA (with the possible exception of some .... very few.... books and maybe a painting) is the goal EVER to simply put out the best content for the reader, listener or viewer and nothing else. If that media makes it to the public, it has been filtered through the executives and has been given another goal. And that goal almost always has something to do with revenue OTHER THAN the sale of or subscription to that media.

So, in my view, you are simply incorrect. It is not as simple as "I paid for it, so I should be able to access it however I like. The information is mine. I bought it." No. Not even close. The content is secondary..... and not even a close second.

The only reason there even is a subscription price for magazines is because that keeps EVERYONE from getting it, even if only to use it to level table legs. (Much like charging a cover charge at the door keeps the "riff raff" out.)

Try this. Go back through your old BP mags. Look for the full-page ads by the largest companies. Try to establish patterns as to WHERE those ads are and what content is on the pages before and after. I bet you won't be through the thrid magazine before you have established patterns and probably figured out what content readers said they turned to first. If there's a full-page ad from Fender, Ampeg, GK, etc., you can believe whatever is near that ad is a hot topic. And readers have filled out surveys and told them it's the hot topic. Amd the WHOME POINT of those surveys was never to "enhance content". It was to determine which pages they ciukd charge the most for. We did it with Arbitron ratings in radio. Hot morning shows and afternoon commute shows were the highest priced ad times. Duh. In my area, I couldn't give away ads during lunch time. Why? Rush Limbaugh. (That's not a political statement. He just killed in every demographic almost in an area with half a dozen military bases.) My new rock and classic rock stations had nothing for him at noon. The only other stations that sold during that time were mom rock and pop music stations.

Ever wonder how Publisher's Clearing House could offer 10 subscriptions for a whole year for some ridiculously low price? It's because the money from subscriptions was never factored in to begin with. Heck, PCH probably got to keep most or all of that money.

Read Men's Health sometime. It's one big ad. One month you read how avocados are the new super food and will prevent heart attacks. The next month you read how avocados are one of the foods that are sneaking fat into your diet and adding inches to your belly.

The publisher doesn't care. It doesn't matter. The whole point of that rag is the PERCEPTION that by reading it, you'll become healthier. The whole point of that PERCEPTION is to guide you to the ad for the newest hippest watch or protein bar... or car... or fashion brand. It never was about making you healthier to begin with. Sure, the writers think they are literally saving our lives and doing a service to humanity. The publisher needs them to think that so they are emotionally vested in the content... which isn't about content.

Most of the people I see reading Men's Health couldn't run 100 yards if they were being chased by a bear.

The whole point of BP was the PERCEPTION that you'll become a better bass player for having read it. (I never got any better at anything from reading a magazine. I read Tennis magazine for a decade. I bought really nice tennis shoes and gear. I never scored once based on something in an article.) The whole point of that perception was to sell ads.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend. These are just my opinions. Take them for what they are worth.... exactly zero.

Here's hoping you get the next few issues you paid for.

It figures that an ad man would think the entire thing is about ads. And I realize that’s the money stream, and the publisher is in business, but that’s not the whole story because you can’t sell ads if no one is reading the magazine.

So I think you are horribly misguided to think that “enhancing the experience of the end user” is not the simplest, most direct, and most honest way to “get your eyes and ears where ad guys want them”. In a nutshell you have described exactly what is wrong with so many businesses today and why BP is dying a long slow death. Whatever happened to actually providing real value, to win-win, to satisfying a customer and building a long-term business relationship, to honest hard work instead of slick, empty, hollow products and services? People used to take pride in a job well-done, not just in the accumulation of wealth by any means.

So my point is that an index and other online content that directs readers back to the magazine would be good business. It would put my eyes where the ad guys want, in the *next* issue of BP. The kind of index I am suggesting could be pulled together by a summer intern in 4 weeks. You yourself admitted that you couldn’t sell ads against Rush Limbaugh because no one was listening. Same for BP - they can’t sell ads if no one is reading. And let’s face it, they need to hold on to long time readers. They are not going to be converting many new readers in the teeth of online bass lessons and gear reviews. So quality content and services that retain current readers should be a focus. Alas the owners seem to think like you, so soon the magazine will be dead.

The longest lived, most successful magazines are high quality and have staked out a niche that sets them apart. The Economist, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, et. al. Quality is a great way to get - and more importantly - keep eyeballs.

Again you misunderstand me and put words in my mouth that I did not say. When I say an index for BP transcriptions would nice it is not because I expect them to be altruistic or feel they somehow owe it to me. I say that because it is a cheap thing they could do to increase value, and readers will respond to that value. I know I would. It would just be good business. Once the last reader is gone, not another ad will sold. They should think about the readers more.

 

[JimK]

Personally, I think Advertising is a Fugazi...

 

[MEKer]

Uh....Maybe I'm going to advertise something. Then I can call myself an "Advertiser". That would be cool.

 

[NMTB]

Now do it to your phone, tablet, or computer, without anyone seeing you...

Depending where you carry your phone, any resulting odours will vary greatly and may prove hazardous.

 

[project_c]

the whole point of a magazine is to get eyes on ads. It's NOT to conveniently lay out information in a way such as to help you get to it more quickly. Far from it. In fact, the OPPOSITE of that. If you are able to get to the information you want, and ONLY the information you want, quickly, then you aren't thumbing through the magazine looking for it. If you aren't thumbing through the magazine, you are getting repeat views of their ads. If you aren't getting repeat views of their ads, the ads won't be effective. If the ads aren't effective, vendors will stop buying ads. No ads, no magazine.

So, in essence, if you guys got your way, the magazine would have folded years ago because the ads would have been even less effective even earlier.

It's not the job of the publisher to make it easy for you to get YOUR favorite info. It's their job to try to get you to glance at their ads as often as possible.

TV gets paid for by commercials. At some point (if they already haven't) they will figure out how to measure what percentage of ads are getting the fast forward treatment (and thus less effective). Once that happens, TV will start to struggle as well.

Sports get paid for by ad revenue (both college and pro). You think ticket sales at Alabama make them a zillion dollars? Nope. ESPN (or whatever network) contracts make them a zillion dollars. ESPN is paid for by ads, no so much subscriber (especially these days).

Radio (both over the air and internet) gets paid for by ad revenue.

If we start doing away with ads of every kind, many of the things we really like will go away. Had BP magazine provided easy access to small blocks of content (either with index pages or search engines) the ad companies would have figured out immediately that their ads were not going to be seen.

I used to sell radio ads in the 90s. I competed against print and video media (as well as other radio stations, of course). Luckily, I was doing that right before the interwebz stood everything on its head.

What a horrible way to see things. Totally disagree
with the overall sentiment behind that. You really don’t need to ram advertising down every orifice in order to provide editorial content. If that’s the only thing keeping a publication afloat, it’s probably not worth the paper it’s printed on.

 

[two fingers]

What a horrible way to see things. Totally disagree
with the overall sentiment behind that. You really don’t need to ram advertising down every orifice in order to provide editorial content. If that’s the only thing keeping a publication afloat, it’s probably not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Then so be it. The simple fact of the matter is this. If not for the ads, none of that "editorial content" would exist. Subscription fees are not nearly enough to keep a magazine afloat.

Just look at newspapers. They are drying up fast. And it's more about ads than subscriptions. Less people are buying newspapers so clients are taking their ad revenue elsewhere. The local newspaper where I grew up is 50 cents for Wednesday and a dollar for Sunday issues. (They had to stop doing the other days of the week due to lack of sales.... ad sales.) Do you think a couple thousand people a 50 cents and a dollar could keep a staff of writers and a building going? Nope. Not even close. It's the local Ford dealership, grocery stores and department stores keeping it from shutting down altogether. The same holds true for the New York Times, which had been letting people go for months and struggling financially. It's not subscriptions keeping it afloat. It's Lincoln, Pepsi, Carnival Cruise Lines, etc.

But here's the thing. Why is it "horrible"? Why would it bother you to know that your favorite magazine wouldn't exist if not for ad revenue? Why would it bother you to know that the mag is laid out intentionally to make sure you see the most expensive ads?

If it weren't for those ads, your "editorial content" would cost a hundred bucks an issue, or.... more likely just not exist. So I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Everyone gets what they want. You get a cheap magazine full of knitting tips or articles on how to buy free range organic responsibly sourced recyclable plastic forks. Writers get to go to work. Clients get to expose you to content they want you to see.

Who gets hurts?

 

[project_c]

Then so be it. The simple fact of the matter is this. If not for the ads, none of that "editorial content" would exist. Subscription fees are not nearly enough to keep a magazine afloat.

Just look at newspapers. They are drying up fast. And it's more about ads than subscriptions. Less people are buying newspapers so clients are taking their ad revenue elsewhere. The local newspaper where I grew up is 50 cents for Wednesday and a dollar for Sunday issues. (They had to stop doing the other days of the week due to lack of sales.... ad sales.) Do you think a couple thousand people a 50 cents and a dollar could keep a staff of writers and a building going? Nope. Not even close. It's the local Ford dealership, grocery stores and department stores keeping it from shutting down altogether. The same holds true for the New York Times, which had been letting people go for months and struggling financially. It's not subscriptions keeping it afloat. It's Lincoln, Pepsi, Carnival Cruise Lines, etc.

But here's the thing. Why is it "horrible"? Why would it bother you to know that your favorite magazine wouldn't exist if not for ad revenue? Why would it bother you to know that the mag is laid out intentionally to make sure you see the most expensive ads?

If it weren't for those ads, your "editorial content" would cost a hundred bucks an issue, or.... more likely just not exist. So I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Everyone gets what they want. You get a cheap magazine full of knitting tips or articles on how to buy free range organic responsibly sourced recyclable plastic forks. Writers get to go to work. Clients get to expose you to content they want you to see.

Who gets hurts?

I see your point, but ultimately the reason behind all this is that printed media is dying, because most people no longer need it. Nobody under 50 buys printed media any more. It's a shame (especially as I make much of my living from editorial work) but it's sadly a soon-to-be extinct format. Ad revenues will only keep things going for another decade at most, and sadly the further the format declines, the more ads will replace content, until you essentially just end up with wall-to-wall advertising, thereby putting an end to the whole purpose of the publication. This was not always the case - magazines and newspapers used to be focussed on editorial content and ads were present, but did not take up 90% of the available space. And books never needed to make room for ad space, but that's a whole other story.

The answer will eventually have to be subscription or nothing. The subscription model is not working right now, partly because we are in a period of transition, and partly because free content is everywhere so there is no incentive for subscription-based business models. There is an incredible amount of high quality editorial content out there for free (aeon.co, narrative.ly, etc), and writers and creators are out there generating material worthy of publication, and meanwhile everybody uniformly hates overbearing online advertising, so things are bound to change.

Ultimately it will come down to balance - print was fine when the editorial content was the main point of focus, supported by some advertising. When it's just a bundle of adverts with weak and minimal editorial content in the background, it stops having a reason to exist. I suspect online media will start to generate more significant revenue when online advertising becomes overbearing to the point of becoming intolerable, and people will eventually start paying. We already do this with Spotify, Netflix, apps etc, and while those platforms are far from perfect, they at least show that there is a willingness for people to bypass advertising and pay for content. People won't pay the same prices as they do for print, but digital publishing is nowhere near as costly and print, so there will hopefully be a balance somewhere.

 

[Spidey2112]

You get a cheap magazine full of knitting tips or articles on how to buy free range organic responsibly sourced recyclable plastic forks.

Not sure how you knew those are my two favorite interests, but you did...

... can I get both print and digital subscriptions of each?

 

[two fingers]

I see your point, but ultimately the reason behind all this is that printed media is dying, because most people no longer need it. Nobody under 50 buys printed media any more. It's a shame (especially as I make much of my living from editorial work) but it's sadly a soon-to-be extinct format. Ad revenues will only keep things going for another decade at most, and sadly the further the format declines, the more ads will replace content, until you essentially just end up with wall-to-wall advertising, thereby putting an end to the whole purpose of the publication. This was not always the case - magazines and newspapers used to be focussed on editorial content and ads were present, but did not take up 90% of the available space. And books never needed to make room for ad space, but that's a whole other story.

The answer will eventually have to be subscription or nothing. The subscription model is not working right now, partly because we are in a period of transition, and partly because free content is everywhere so there is no incentive for subscription-based business models. There is an incredible amount of high quality editorial content out there for free (aeon.co, narrative.ly, etc), and writers and creators are out there generating material worthy of publication, and meanwhile everybody uniformly hates overbearing online advertising, so things are bound to change.

Ultimately it will come down to balance - print was fine when the editorial content was the main point of focus, supported by some advertising. When it's just a bundle of adverts with weak and minimal editorial content in the background, it stops having a reason to exist. I suspect online media will start to generate more significant revenue when online advertising becomes overbearing to the point of becoming intolerable, and people will eventually start paying. We already do this with Spotify, Netflix, apps etc, and while those platforms are far from perfect, they at least show that there is a willingness for people to bypass advertising and pay for content. People won't pay the same prices as they do for print, but digital publishing is nowhere near as costly and print, so there will hopefully be a balance somewhere.

I'm fine with that except for one not-so-subtle difference.

Your first point was....

"I see your point, but ultimately the reason behind all this is that printed media is dying, because most people no longer need it. Nobody under 50 buys printed media any more."

I contend that their BUYING it was never the reason it existed to begin with. Newspapers are GIVEN away by the thousands and thousands. Every hotel has them waiting outside the door of rooms and dozens of copies in the lobby. You think the hotel PAYS for them? Nope. Paper machines have always worked by putting in a quarter or two and opening the door... allowing one to take as many copies as they wish, with no policing.

Subscriptions NEVER DID prop up print media. (OK, maybe in the early 1800s.... but not since.) It has ALWAYS been ad revenue that kept it going. There would never have been a Time Magazine had it not been for ads.

So, the reason print media is dying is that no EYES are seeing the ads. So ad buyers are finding other ways to reach those eyes. Most internet content is the same way. Sure. ads are annoying. But don't avoid your favorite web content because of ads for too long. The thing about the internet is that the data behind it is ridiculously easy to track. Ad buyers can find out EXACTLY who is clicking and when they do it. They can target their ads to those clickers. If that ad revenue goes away, likely so will your favorite website.... just like print.

Professional sports, concerts, TV (broadcast AND streamed) and most all other media would cease to exist were it not for sponsors and ads. Honestly, I would rather Pepsi pay for my TV shows and Corona Extra pay for part of my concert tickets. That way it wouldn't cost me a car payment for cable and the price of a laptop for Chris Stapleton tickets.

 

[Spidey2112]

I still get 3 magazine subscriptions... gives me something to read at work... two, on annual renewal, and one lifetime. As long as the price is right (first) and there's actual information/entertainment provided to me (second), I'll continue to subscribe, even with a few more ads occupying my immediate viewing area...

... when it feels like I'm paying for Val-Pak coupons, that's when it stops.

 

[Roland GR 88]

Mr. Two Fingers is dead on here and New Bay Media was one of the worst offenders at disguising ad copy as editorial content.
For those too young or late to the party BP actually wrote a full page apology to its readers early within the first year or so for its blatantly positive reviews and slanted editorial views.
New Bay were the kings of infotainment magazines and for me, won't be missed.

 

[project_c]

I'm fine with that except for one not-so-subtle difference.

Your first point was....

"I see your point, but ultimately the reason behind all this is that printed media is dying, because most people no longer need it. Nobody under 50 buys printed media any more."

I contend that their BUYING it was never the reason it existed to begin with. Newspapers are GIVEN away by the thousands and thousands. Every hotel has them waiting outside the door of rooms and dozens of copies in the lobby. You think the hotel PAYS for them? Nope. Paper machines have always worked by putting in a quarter or two and opening the door... allowing one to take as many copies as they wish, with no policing.

Subscriptions NEVER DID prop up print media. (OK, maybe in the early 1800s.... but not since.) It has ALWAYS been ad revenue that kept it going. There would never have been a Time Magazine had it not been for ads.

So, the reason print media is dying is that no EYES are seeing the ads. So ad buyers are finding other ways to reach those eyes. Most internet content is the same way. Sure. ads are annoying. But don't avoid your favorite web content because of ads for too long. The thing about the internet is that the data behind it is ridiculously easy to track. Ad buyers can find out EXACTLY who is clicking and when they do it. They can target their ads to those clickers. If that ad revenue goes away, likely so will your favorite website.... just like print.

Professional sports, concerts, TV (broadcast AND streamed) and most all other media would cease to exist were it not for sponsors and ads. Honestly, I would rather Pepsi pay for my TV shows and Corona Extra pay for part of my concert tickets. That way it wouldn't cost me a car payment for cable and the price of a laptop for Chris Stapleton tickets.

Yeah, all fair points. I think there may be a slight cross-cultural issue here: I'm in the UK where printed media - for the most part - was not given away free until very recently. People paid for printed matter and that money went back into creating content, just as much as the ad money did. The advertising also played a huge role in this, of course, but again it's just a case of balance. When you take the focus away from content, and place it on advertising, you are essentially turning information media into a sales platform. The main purpose of these publications was to spread information, not to sell product. The advertising side has always been a 'necessary evil' to support the delivery of information to the public. Focus on advertising over content leads to weak or biased journalism, and subsequently the readers abandon ship and the publication collapses. In the UK, there are many examples of newspapers which used to publish unbiased and credible content, but are now free and full of nothing but celebrity gossip and ads.

Your point about tickets that cost the price of a laptop is fair, but the fact that concert tickets cost the price of a house is indicative of a whole skewed system which is in a state of collapse, and can only be maintained in increasingly bizarre ways. Just like Gibson's $560m debt, it's not sustainable in the long term.

 

[TolerancEJ]

Tagging on for more info.....I just renewed for another two years.

I hope they stick around. I am still relatively new into my 2-year subscription.

 

[Jeff Scott]

I hope they stick around. I am still relatively new into my 2-year subscription.

You are probably too young to remember Bassics magazine, run by Ron Garant (one of Canãda's finest). Good luck, but think of the money lost as going to a cause of some sort........................

 

[TolerancEJ]

You are probably too young to remember Bassics magazine, run by Ron Garant (one of Canãda's finest). Good luck, but think of the money lost as going to a cause of some sort........................

No, sorry I'm not familiar with that magazine. But I was subscriber to Canadian Musician waaay back.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Well, Ol' Ron took everybody's money and ran with it.

 

[JimK]

Ultimately it will come down to balance - print was fine when the editorial content was the main point of focus, supported by some advertising. When it's just a bundle of adverts with weak and minimal editorial content in the background, it stops having a reason to exist.

Same for TV.
I'll stream an old/ancient Dick Van Dyke Show...28 minutes.
I recently streamed an epi of the Big Bang Theory...18 minutes?!?!

Garbage!

 

[P. Aaron]

TalkBass is MY bass gear magazine.