Yesterday’s announcement by the Washington Post of their intention to sell Newsweek should come as no surprise. In fact, it wouldn’t have shocked me to see them announce they would simply shut it down. Yet many traditional media analysts still seem surprised by the news.
Time and Newsweek have held prominent positions in media history. For decades, it truly mattered what topic they chose to adorn their covers each Monday. In a world where news was dominated by the evening newscast, these two publications truly influenced the national agenda. But it’s been at least 15-20 years since either publication was truly relevant. As David Carr asked in a tweet yesterday, when was the last time you picked up a copy of Newsweek other than in a dentist office?
The impact of real-time news cannot be dismissed. Looking at the Newsday announcement itself, the first tweets appeared yesterday around 10:45am in a tweet by Anthony Edgecliffe-Johnson. Within 15-20 minutes, I’d seen 40-50 comments on the announcement in my tweetstream. In fact, when I saw a tweet “announcing” the sale yesterday afternoon around 2:30pm by Steve Rubel, I recall thinking “why is he tweeting old news as though it were just breaking?”.
I realize, of course, that only a small number of consumers are Twitter users, but cable news has the same impact. How many people have seen the photo of the Times Square bomber already? Would you buy an issue of Newsweek or Time next Monday if his picture were on the cover?
I can only think of three weekly news-oriented magazines which remain relevant to a wide audience.
The Economist is successful largely on the quality of their writing, their willingness to do long-form stories which lend themselves to deeper analysis, and the fact that they bring a global (or at least European) perspective to world events.
New York Magazine remains relevant because it covers stories that others don’t. They don’t have a new focus, though certainly have elements of news in their pages. For New Yorkers, they provide a mix of who, what & where that remains important, though I can see them threatened in the long run by various blogs from Gothamist to Gawker. The
New Yorker remains relevant for some of the same reasons as the Economist. Long-form stories, often on topics barely touched on elsewhere, combined with fiction from top writers make the New Yorker a good read.
Newsweek certainly has some quality writers, Jonathan Alter and Fareed Zakaria among them. Yet their format doesn’t provide a forum for these writers to do quality investigative journalism. How much of a difference in quality shows through in a 500 word story? Let’s face it- Rolling Stone has probably produced more relevant and impactful articles on politics and finance in the past year than Time and Newsweek together.
Of course the key parlor game question is “who will buy Newsweek?” I’ll play along with a few suggestions (apologies to those who saw me tweet these yesterday morning – I guess blog posts can seem old compared to real-time tweets).
First, I’ll dismiss the one that many others have suggested. I don’t see any likelihood that Bloomberg will buy Newsweek. Yes, they have a lot of money and just bought Business Week, but their efforts to reach a wider audience don’t go as wide as Newsweek. Bloomberg wants to reach the corporate C-Suite, not Main Street. The new Bloomberg BusinessWeek gives them a great vehicle, in print and online, to do that, while providing more commentary to deliver through their terminals. Newsweek provides neither. So, those hoping to see a BloombergBusinessNewsWeek masthead will be disappointed.
News Corporation (NWS) could buy Newsweek. During its heyday, Newsweek was always a center-left publication, as compared to the more right-leaning Time under Henry Luce. From an ego standpoint, I can imaging Rupert Murdoch’s delight in moving Newsweek aggressively to the right. I can imagine his enjoyment in letting Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity sit behind the desk formerly inhabited by Ben Bradlee. Yet I see this as unlikely. Fox has print vehicles already (most prominently the WSJ) and I don’t see Newsweek as ultimately that attractive.
The Huffington Post or Politico should buy Newsweek. These alternative media have grown tremendously. HuffPo traffic is now ranked 10th among news with more than 13 million uniques in March. They have aggressively moved beyond politics, covering world events and local news. Yet the brand perception remains as a left-leaning political site. The Newsweek brand could bring instant credibility with a wider audience. While the print side of the business may not be that attractive, I could see where keeping print alive might bring them some advertisers they would otherwise not reach. If not, they could easily shut down the print operations a year or two from now, keeping the brand as an online-only news product.
For magazine publishers, the long-term question may be the one posed by Mathew Ingram:
Hopefully trade rags like Adweek and Mediaweek have already given some thought to their business model, but they might want to change their names while they're at it. And, in the world of real-time news, will we soon be saying that Women's Wear Daily and Investors Business Daily sound too static?
