http://www.racialicious.com/2009/03/27/should-b…

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/03/27/should-b…

This should have been done long ago, so the costs involved in doing so now will be expensive, however if they want to stay in the game, that is their most sucessful path.

(dat's my $0.02)

Where print cannot beat the web is speed and frequency, again which is partly what Jet has depended on to separate itself. It is only dailies with enormous resources like the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or USA Today that can compete with the internet in that respect, because they are of somewhat similar speed but of much better quality. And even those businesses are having tough times.

Okay, I think I'm done rambling for now… I hope your answer is somewhere in there.

I have always known Jet as an information source more than anything else, something that I used to catch up on things that was not being covered by other media outlets. Aside from its content and target audience, newsworthiness, timeliness, and frequency were always at the cornerstone of what made Jet different and unique.

The question I was looking to raise it now that much of what Jet offered is available on the internet on demand, is it even relevant in its weekly form? I don't think things like the cost of mailing has nearly has much to do with the publications difficulties as the internet does. Even if mailing cost half of what it was now, how does that make a weekly version of Jet more relevant to the reader who not only can get information for free online, but more importantly, nearly as fast as it happens?

Think about it. It's the print sources that depend upon frequency and being the first to deliver news with no true differentiation in terms of content that has suffered the most. It has been the tabloid magazines and the newspapers that have have gone down first for that reason.

I don't know any other way to say that oftentimes what I read in Jet is old news by the time I see it. I'm not sure how its a viable business offline as a weekly magazine. And the information delivered does not seem to be altogether different than what's available on other websites. Jet can counter this by reducing the delivery time of content down to a day (which would require the internet) or delivering much more focused content to a more specific audience, which would in turn still reduce its circulation numbers anyway, so you are back at square one.

Also, as you have more generations accustomed to getting their news online by the second, the less relevant a weekly information source like Jet will be in its current form. It's not just about the cost, but how long the content takes to get delivered when we are talking about news. Even local papers will struggle unless they are of good quality, cover the same and more content than what is available on the internet (as relevant to their audience), and/or are daily. Keeping up when you are talking about frequency and newsworthiness being what separates you from your peers becomes a game of who is the best reporter, who can get the best and most relevant information out there the fastest. And that takes resources and a lightning fast response. As I see it, it's nearly impossible for Jet to offer the information as quickly as can be done on the web. That again, is less about cost and more about time. If a time-dependent print publication like Jet could deliver quality news faster than it's peers on the internet, then this would be a different conversation altogether. I am just not sure it can be done.

I agree that the solution requires a multi-channel effort that includes web, services, print, etc. Where I disagree with your article is that the internet really is a top, if not the, deciding source and factor of why a magazine like Jet is falling.

Nokware wisely pointed out that people need a more compelling content in order to pay for a monthly magazine. If a blog delivers for free the same content daily that it takes a magazine months to compile, then why would I pay and wait for it?

So you're right about print dying for quite sometime, but the web was more than just a symptom, it delivered the death blow.

I'm sure were there is a will the will be a way!

Good stuff Blackweb2.0

Andre Holmes
http://www.urbanthinking.net/

It wasn't an article about Ebony or Jet or the web. It was simply about whether companies who only do print – like some magazine and newspaper companies still do (not Ebony and Jet) by the way) – could ever survive. Some smaller, nimbler publications for whom less profit is more than enough will be fine, but the big guys in print only – no, most likely not.

But it also doesn't do what so many writers do, which is to say the web is responsible for print's demise. One of the nails in the coffin, but not the only one. There's an array of factors from time management to other things, but the web is one symptom and not the disease itself. Print's been dying a rapid death for the last 30 years. More people are just talking about it now. And how people get their news has not been the biggest problem for newspapers, but how people get their classifieds. Craigslist killed more papers than,say, Huffington Post. 40% of most newspapers' money came from classifieds.

Actually anyone thinking that the web is THE solution is equally wrong. It is one of them, but media companies will have to move away from ad-based models and develop diverse business models [consumer goods, research, audience intelligence, selling databases] to help fund their digital strategies since it will be a good 5 years or more before digital money makes up for print revenue 1:1.

Eric Easter