Should the government, bailout magazines?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joshua Thomas on September 24, 2008 at 10:47am

Nope.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kathryn Lymburner on September 24, 2008 at 4:14pm

No way. Financial institutions is one thing magazines...not so much. When was the last time government bailed out a a restaurant?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Cardillo on September 24, 2008 at 5:10pm

do I think they should? no, but then I don't think many gov't bailouts are warranted.

if they can bail out American Airlines, why can't they bail out Conde or Ziff before they lay off hundreds or thousands?

let them all go under, or shouldn't we "let the market decide?" (don't get me started...)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ramla Akhtar on October 14, 2008 at 4:29am

No. No one should be bailed out.

It is a time in history when humans have great knowledge at their disposal, cheap and modular technology, ability to connect across the globe via the Internet, and almost any resource one can think of (or its alternative). So this indeed is a time when we should show our mettle, or let those who have the right solutions come forward rather than stay entrenched in old practices.

There is a reason why many businesses - including magazines - are going out of business. That is: consumers no longer need them. There are entire movements out there that are about changing values: lesser consumption, slower lifestyle, creating communities, eco-friendly lifestyle etc. In short, in the face of the survival threats, people have made significant changes.

Many of these movements have been enabled through the Internet - and they have spread people-to-people. Much of that has been ignored by big media and big finance and big everyone. It is, however, very significant. One blogger of influence can sabotage an entire operation - or build support for it.

In Pakistan, we coordinated Earthquake relief and the Lawyers' Movement through wikis, blogs, email, SMS, Facebook and Orkut. Supplemented with grass root camps.

The significance of this power has to be taken into account. Print media is not going out of fashion - because print is just a media. Their content and strategy are, however, rather slow in catching up with the times.

Let the fastest adapter survive! No bailout will ensure that people read something which is out of alignment.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ramla Akhtar on October 14, 2008 at 4:37am

BTW the above is not to suggest that only a certain point of view is published. Rather, it is about staying attuned with the times - which is universal. It is about the method.

The American Elections are a great example of this. The different agendas kept aside, Obama's campaign also used a contemporary medium - Internet. Not just as a brochure (which would be old-fashioned), but as a means of:

- raising funds
- recruiting community leaders
- distributing jobs, such as making campaign calls
- distributing flyers and badges and buttons - brand building at near zero marginal cost
- publishing the agenda for change, etc.

The campaign didn't just "use the Net" as a filler, but used it in a way that people of the world are using it: to organize themselves, to share ideas, to empower themselves, etc.

Lesson: It's not just sufficient to print. Or go online. It's about having a holistic contemporary strategy - everything from which audience, to which content, to which distribution methodology.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kerry Smith on October 15, 2008 at 8:13pm

It looks like bailout rationale is based on impact of failure on the economy and loss of jobs. Mags and newspapers don't come near the impact zone to even register.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pamela La Gioia on October 16, 2008 at 11:02am

No, I don't think so at all. That's what the internet is for. How come everything isn't digital?

"There is a reason why many businesses - including magazines - are going out of business. That is: consumers no longer need them. There are entire movements out there that are about changing values: lesser consumption, slower lifestyle, creating communities, eco-friendly lifestyle etc. In short, in the face of the survival threats, people have made significant changes." (from Ramla, below) I couldn't have said it better.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kathryn Lymburner on October 16, 2008 at 11:59am

I think that the bigger reason magazines go out of business is because many people believe starting, owning and running a magazine is not that difficult; they ascribe a level of status, fame or notoriety to magazine publishing (ala Anna Wintour); they believe it's easy money or any combination of the above factors. Beyond that a lot of people fail to put the research into their targeted audience or competing publications. If the widget industry has 1000 people in it, sustaining two or even three magazines on this topic is not economically feasible.

It's much like the restaurant business where any Tom, Dick or Harry believes they too can run THE BEST restaurant/bar/club in town because they're passionate about food/drink/parties. Restaurants close down every day because it doesn't meet what consumers want, and it is the same for magazines.

I don't see how movements towards: lesser consumption, slower lifestyle, creating communities, eco-friendly lifestyle etc, equals magazines going out of business, when in fact many new and current magazines surround these exact topics. In fact a slower lifestyle is more conducive to people sitting down to read a magazine instead of zooming around the Internet consuming more information. Magazine membership on its own helps create communities; communities of ideas, information exchange, understanding, and subscriber in-groups.

Even with the rise of technology and everything digital, magazines (and books for that matter) will continue to have a place but the laws of economics will dictate who dies and who survives.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Zingalis on October 17, 2008 at 9:58am

The money should have never been spent in the first place. Gambling is gambling, and sometimes you lose. Lack of financial education will not act as a barrier preventing legal action against millions of americans in this housing / credit mess. At the same time though, it seems that an 'I didn't know the speed limit was 25, and that you are not supposed to drive into brick walls' from banks grabs 700 billion tears of sympathy from the government running around like flailing weiners talking about the world collapsing.

If by 'bailout' you mean let a publication fall into a horrific bankruptcy where the investors loose everything...then sure, i'm in.

Everything the government pays is simply money directly out of your pocket. There is quite enough forced good samaritan pilfering occuring as we speak. The great thing about our government is that when they run out of our money with budget overruns, they simply print money and inflate the entire money supply. (IE: why a 5k house early in this century costs 100k). It's not the actual property getting more expensive....It is your money liquidating.

I complain, but I like our government. Whenever I watch International House Hunters I feel better about my overall lifestyle.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Michem on October 17, 2008 at 2:07pm

IT IS PHYSIOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBLE, TO PRINT THE PHYSICAL AMOUNT of money that the government said is debt. do the math yourself Michael. Look up the debt amount, and go the the Gov printing office and look up how long it take to physical PRINT money.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Zingalis on October 17, 2008 at 4:02pm

They could just buy more printing presses...they do have the money.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kathryn Lymburner on October 17, 2008 at 11:36pm

Which would help out the printing industry since so many magazines are going out of business *snicker*

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last