Is Reed Targeting its Top Editors?

In at least one case, a "top" editor took a Reed magazine I loved in a direction that destroyed it. The editor's self importance drove the magazine rather than a focus on what readers needed. Unfortunately, the publisher didn't know the field and had no clue as to how to serve readers. That approach led to the magazine digging itself into a deep hole. So this editor might have been "top" in the sense he/she was in charge, but not "top" in serving the publication's readers. Glad to see a shake up of some of these positions.

Neither is good for company 'leaders' to exhibit. For years, the direction given from corporate has been to increase web presence, and for reporters to blog away and 'build your own brand'. Many of those well respected 'brands' were let go last week. It tells me that either they just don't know why the subscriber reads the publication, or don't care. Do they think their 'brands' aren't going to be scooped up by the competition? It's almost as if they want the print product to fail so it can be discontinued.

Full disclosure: I was laid off by RBI in October. But, frankly speaking, the "transfer of power" to B&C is shocking and makes zero sense. Multichannel News was always the better-run publication and, even if RBI intends to combine the two brands, why cut the heart out of Multichannel News? The wave of poor management is quickly becoming a tsunami.

I think the "I or A" poster is, unfortunately, dead on in saying killing the print products is the goal. The magazine industry is at the whim of the capital markets that rode a great wave of profits bundling small publication groups into models of vertical integration and cost efficiency a la Reed and Advanstar. They've realized the profits and now see print publications as the albatross that's dragging down their "information business." In their rush to make whatever profit they can and flip themselves out, they have to present some sort of viable business plan to the next investors to see some profit before their own five-year investment timeline is up. Forget long-term planning. Forget loyalty to the brand. I've been through this sausage maker twice in the past 10 years: Why spend money on original content and the paper/postage/etc. to carry it when you can aggregate info and just keep skimming the Long-Tail cream? But now you have people who didn’t know how to run magazines (a fairly simple business really) running to the Internet. “Online only” is the cry. Get rid of all those expenses and create a P&L brimming with cost-free ad revenue and let the next investor figure out it's a load of crap when the advertisers don’t see the value in a bunch of banner ads slapped around retread content. The fatal flaw here is that Internet users are not loyal to media brands. They are users, not readers; searchers, not browsers. Web properties that work succeed based on their ability to hyper-efficiently target their messages and convert users to buyers. (See dentalcompare.com for a brilliant example of this model.) Web marketing is lead generation, pure and simple; and the lead-based business model is the only successful one so far. No Web site will ever replace a great magazine for a reader. And no magazine can replace the Web for a motivated, focused shopper (the Holy Grail for marketing directors.) Until those in the media business grasp this simple truth, confusion and missteps will continue to define both platforms. Publishing stopped being fun--and editors, writers and creative, innovative publishers stopped being respected--when the pubs stopped being run by people who loved magazines. Here's the good news: There still are a lot of people who love magazines, who have the talent and drive to produce great work that speaks to people in a way that only magazines can, that hits their gut and fosters community. Will we become a boutique industry? Maybe. And maybe that's not so bad. God knows there are a lot crap magazines out there. Amid the confusion, level heads and inspired hearts will prevail. The people who do this work because they love it are the ones who will guide the magazine industry into its next iteration.

There is no "transfer of power" to B&C. Separate senior editorial staffs, separate publications, & separate web sites. Multichannel has not had staff on the west coast for some time.

...Whut's that thang called a magazeen agin? I gett ahverythang I kneed off that thang the internet.

There may not have been a literal transfer of power, but there was a transfer of power (I put it in quote marks for that reason). From the article: "It was telling, the source said, that Broadcasting & Cable editor Ben Grossman led a conference call announcing the cutbacks at Multichannel News." If that's not a transfer of power, what is?

By my count, Multichannel did have a West Coast presence until Monday.

The announcement was made to both B&C and Multichannel staff in a joint staff meeting by Grossman and Mark Robichaux, EIC of Multichannel.

The guy in New York is under tremendous pressure to sell the company and the big salaries they are paying their legacy editors sticks out on the balance sheet. This is clearly a move towards lowering their cost structure. Sure they need editors to run B2B publications, print or online. However the bulk of their staff are older editors with higher salaries. They want to bring in the youngsters who will do the same (not really the same, but adequate), job at a much lower cost to Reed. As most of these properties are funded by advertisers, the question becomes, do they care? Will advertisers pull their ads? I think not as all the B2B pubs are in the same boat and advertisers need both PR and advertising outlets. Ironically without hotshot editors in the way, the advertiser can play a larger role in contributing their own content to these pubs---so much for impartial journalism, if it ever did exist in the B2B space. Any editor there over 45 or making over $100K should watch your back.

It's not just the top-line editors who got the axe, cheapies are going the way of the dodo too. It's only round one at Reed, anyway. We'll be seeing a lot more of the same, stay tuned...