no website
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- ukit
So I was thinking about The Wire (the magazine, not the TV show) and how it's a shame they don't have a real site drawing on the huge amount of great music editorial they've produced over the years. Instead, they force you to buy each issue (really more of a glorified PDF).
In a way, the commitment to print is admirable , but it's too bad because in the absence of a site by them we're stuck with the likes of Pitchfork as the main sites for "alternative" music.
What do you think, is it a justifiable stance for a company these days to say no the web?
- ckentish0
give me a break - its the weekend.
- ukit0
What do you do on the weekend, shoot heroin and fuck prostitutes the whole time?
Does your brain turn off on the weekend?
- who doesn't shoot prostitutes and fuck heroin these days, :)georgesIII
- I guess that's what you do when shooting heroin and fucking prostitutes gets oldukit
- ckentish0
Nah - just chillin pal.
- ukit0
Then chill buddy. Despite what you might thought not every thread on here is addressed to you personally.
- spraycan0
Leave 'em alone you fascist cunt
- ukit0
Nevermind guys. Sorry I asked. *goes back to fucking heroin
- You're doing it wrong.comicsans
- Don't knock it til you try itukit
- Gives you cockrot!sneakybadger
- You won't notice, trust meukit
- chalk0
Your thread reminds me of something I was just thinking of yesterday. Is a website a brand? Think about how many more people come in contact with a company's website vs. their printed materials. You might do a direct mail to 10,000 people, but your website might see 500k+ visitors a year. Take Ikea for example—so many people go to their website, they decided, "Let's change our corporate font to Verdana," so consumers would recognize the brand indicators outside of the website.
I don't know if it's a corollary to what you said really, but it's something I've been thinking of. Any links to articles on the subject would be welcomed.
- A website is a product. Brands reach an audience through products.lukus_W
- sneakybadger0
^^^ 99% of all print will disappear eventually, so yes.. or at least it's worth thinking in that way in preparation.
- chalk0
^ Bleh, statistics! I have a banking client and a large university client at work, and neither of their print materials are going anywhere anytime soon, that's for sure.
I'd really like to find some authoritative articles on this subject, less "print is dead, long live the web," and more about the semantics.
- ukit0
Website is just another medium like print or TV, it's not a brand.
I think we've gotten to the point though where people more or less expect to have everything accessible online. Sometimes I just find myself wanting to read about music and I go to their site and there's nothing there. I've been subscribing to their magazine for a long time and it's definitely one of the best music magazine, but these days the content feels slightly old by the time you get it.
- ukit0
Saying print is dead is silly, there will always be some kind of print. It's a different issue for newspaper/ magazine publishers because the web potentially directly replaces what they offer their customers.
- chalk0
Obviously a website is not directly the brand, and I know you know that's not what I meant. I meant that the website leads the brand more now, as opposed to printed materials.
Your second paragraph thought IS what I meant. If people hear about XYZ company, and they are interested, the first thing they will do is look online. Not get the Yellow Pages and give the company a call. Therefore, isn't what you put online the front-runner for your brand?
You are right about the magazine bit—and that's partly where this discussion came up for me yesterday. Was having a discussion with friends about how much we all used to read, and how now we find it almost unbearable to try to read sometimes (print, of course; I could sit online reading articles, blogs, etc. all day, which is terrible).
It's an interesting series of thoughts, and I think in a lot of ways we're all very lucky to be a part of this "social age," which is really just an information sharing age.
- Forgot to add "through technology" at the end.chalk
- Why terrible? Your getting the info you want and instantly!sneakybadger
- Because I'm sitting in front of a computer screen, raping my eyeballs.chalk
- Frontrunner for the brand, OK didn't get what you were on about earlier lol. Like the Art Directors Club brand redesign, when people were complaining it was ugly people said "oh, but the print applications look so nice" right but who gives a shit, 100k will see the site and 5k the printed onesukit
- when some were complaining it was ugly people said "but the print applications look so nice" right but who gives a shit, 100k will see the site and 5k the printed onesukit
- will see the website and maybe 5-10k the print campaign. But I think in this case it's more a question of content and whether to offer it on the web at all.ukit
- whether to offer it on the web at all.ukit
- chalk0
In a printed piece, the editor/author decides what I read. Online, I choose what I want to read, and can get it and get out.
- sneakybadger0
I never said it was dead... I'm saying in 20-30 years plus it will be... everything will go digi, billboards, magazines, books, newspapers.. you name it, everything can be digitized and it makes sense to do so logistically and economically.
People crave information, they want to choose which information they will consume and they want it now!
- chalk0
I don't know that I believe print will be 99% dissolved, not in 20-30 years, not in 100. Anything is possible though...
- I would say it is going that way, even today all the tech needed is there, it's just tosneakybadger
- costly at the moment.. why a company would spend money on something that goes out of date when they can havesneakybadger
- an ever changing/updating medium is beyond me!sneakybadger
- you mean with digital paper/ e ink kind of thing? i don't think it's near being commercially viable yetukit
- trust me, when your secretary wants to print a get well card or something, she'll still use paper for the next few decades anyway;)ukit
- Of course .. Hence my 20-30 years plus statement, a few generations will have to die off before it becomes a realitysneakybadger
- I meant electronic devices, not digital/e-ink mags, a la the Rolling Stone issue.chalk
- ukit0
Yeah I have to admit I don't really know their motivation. It could be love of print, but it could also just be fear of going out of business. And they have been around for a long time - they outlived many of their contemporaries (like The Face) by catering to a slightly smaller but more loyal audience.
So they let you buy a "digital subscription" and then you get this:
http://www.exacteditions.com/exa…
It just seems retarded to me. It would be one thing to go subscription and offer a good website like WSJ does.
- ukit0
"The newsweeklies and business titles were hit particularly hard on the newsstand in the second half of 2009, with Newsweek falling 41%, Time declining 35% and the Economist down 24%. Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Fortune and SmartMoney posted percentage declines in the mid-20s.
Other notable declines on the newsstand came from the New Yorker (down 23%), Rolling Stone (down 22%) and New York magazine (down 22%)."
Pretty amazing. I guess Washington Post is trying to sell Newsweek since it no longer profitable for them.