Reader's Digest, the most widely read magazine in the world, is publishing its milestone 1000th issue using digital delivery technology from Texterity In some ways, this is also a "milestone" for digital editions, which have been growing over the last few years, but still represent a small percentage of all published magazines. It's appropriate that this particular issue is published as a digital edition: it includes a supplement called "Future" and will contain trends in health, media, money, living, science/technology, and society.
Reader's Digest, like many consumer magazines, has struggled with maintaining its subscriber base. Still, it's circulation (once as high as 17.75 million) is still roughly 10 million readers.
A concern for RD is the average age of the reader (hovering around 50 years old). It's been going down a bit recently, but RD would love to get the younger demographic. As this printicon embraces digital it raises some key question about delivery in this day. Will digital editions attract younger readers who will realize that RD has some pretty cool content -- and might go ahead and subscibe? And, does RD become more relevant to the current demographic (i.e., the "older folk") who are increasingly using computers and the web? In light of the recent shift in TV Guide, are digital editions emerging as an answer to some of the challenges facing print?
posted by Cimarron Buser
Perhaps it's rather ironic that today TV Guide basically threw in the towel on their entire format and franchise. Really, the problem they face has nothing to do with how it's distributed -- paper or digital. TV "Guide" is a concept that makes no sense in an era when there are 500 TV channels and I can TiVo whatever I want and watch it whenever I want -- automatically found through my TV itself with no need to refer to the web or a print directory. In my opinioin, TV Guide's problems are far greater than anything that can ever be solved with a digital version. (Frankly, I get the feeling that digital versions are too often being positioned as a solution looking for a problem to solve.) Is the suggestion that "digital versions" are something hip that will attract a younger audience? Is there some research showing that younger audiences are clamoring for PDF-like digital versions? I'm surrounded by dozens of members of the younger audience and I don't know anyone who prefers PDF-like documents to HTML. To me something that replicates print (rather than is designed specifically for an online experience) is inherently more appealing to an older audience transitioning online than to a younger audience who have lived their life in front of a screen. Not to be too critical. I'm sure digital versions are popular with some audience -- just not in this case.
Posted by: Rex Hammock | July 26, 2005 at 03:36 PM
I just don't get the appeal of digital editions. And I suspect that readers don't either. Taking a print magazine and putting it into a PDF-like document does not create a Web product. It's a half-measure, and one not likely to win converts to either the print publication or to online. Digital editions fail to take advantage of the strengths of either print or electronic. Creating these things as part of a new media strategy is every bit as silly as holding a magazine up to TV camera, turning the pages every few seconds, and calling the result a television show.
As for TV Guide...I agree. There's just no need for the product any more. That's sort of sad to us old-timers. But there's just no denying that a print guide to television is an idea that has passed. Even my 75-year-old mother uses the on-set channel guide now. The TV Guide brand may live on -- there seems to be an endless appetite for celebrity news. But the listings cannot be the core of the product anymore.
Posted by: Paul Conley | July 27, 2005 at 12:26 PM