Page Views for Print Magazines?
Buried in celebrity media report, a new metric.
DeSilva + Phillips, the New York-based media banking firm, published a report yesterday on the state of celebrity media. If you’re in the business of celebrity media—particularly the print side—it’s a must read. Spoiler alert: The outlook is, uh, not so good.
You can read FOLIO:’s full synopsis of D+P’s report here.
But here’s one interesting point I didn’t include in the write-up. On page 12, Ken Sonenclar, the author of the report, makes an interesting argument—and possibly invents a new metric–for celebrity magazine publishers wrestling over the ad dollars fleeing print for the Web:
"Celebrity magazines offer a degree of reach that even the dominant websites should envy. The best way to view this is via the language of the Web, where many celebrity magazine “page views” dwarf web page views. Consider US Weekly. In a four-issue month, the magazine will publish 384 pages (96 pages/issue). Taking the magazine’s recent average circulation of 1.9 million, and assuming a conservative pass-along multiplier of three, yields in excess of 2 billion page views for US Weekly per month. That is seven times the page views of TMZ, the Web site with the most page views."
Calculating page views for print magazines. Did we just invent a new, viable metric here? Or is it merely the last (faint) gasps of desperation for a dying medium?