You Won't Believe What This Fortune Teller Predicts for Publishing in 2015!

 Smart phones, not-so-smart publishers, and hot new trends: 24 crazy predictions for the new year

Media consultant

When glancing at my article in the current issue of Publishing Executive, I had a revelation: Now that one of the publishing industry's leading magazines had called on me for predictions, I’ve graduated from blogger to media pundit.

And then my heart sank as I realized I had violated a cardinal rule of the International Order of Pompous Media Pundits: In its six-plus years of existence, Dead Tree Edition had never published a year-end list of predictions for the coming year.

With 2015 already under way and prognostication being new to me, I scraped up 50 bucks – Dead Tree Edition’s entire annual research budget – and headed over to Madame Marie, a local fortune teller and door-to-door magazine saleswoman.

Here are her 24 startling (mostly) predictions about magazines, the three Ps (postal, paper, and printing), social media, and publishing in general for 2015. If some turn out to be true, you can be sure I’ll be writing “told ya so” pieces in the next 12 months. And you can blame the wrong ones on Madame Marie:

1) Postal rates will not decrease, even though the exigent surcharge is set to expire this summer. Not sure if that will be from a court order or Congressional action. When I asked Madame Marie to explain, she responded, “What, you think I have crystal ball or something? All I know is, don’t ever bet on government getting rid of a temporary tax or fee.”

2) More web sites will jump into the printed magazine business. But they will not be welcomed into the fraternity of consumer-magazine publishers because they won’t have bloated ratebases or sell annula subscriptions for $5.

A postal bankruptcy would be, like, a bummer, man.

3) Three-dimensional printing will grow almost as fast as the buzz about it. By June, ad agencies will start demanding makegoods if their clients’ magazine ads aren't printed in 3D.

4) USPS will announce a new strategic plan called Seven Six Three – delivering Amazon packages seven days a week, other parcels Monday through Saturday, and everything else three days a week.

5) If you think native advertising is bad, wait until you see foreign-born advertising.

6) Mark Zuckerberg’s new book club will spread like wildfire, until people start seeing spammy “sponsored” posts and photos of distant acquaintances’ new puppies in their books.

7) Despite a decent economy, the market for huge yachts will plummet as billionaires join in the new craze for tasteful displays of wealth – buying a daily newspaper. When I asked Madame Marie whether the newspapers would still struggle, she said, “If you have to ask how much money they will lose, you can’t afford to buy a newspaper.”

8) Congressional Republicans will try to push the U.S. Postal Service into bankruptcy to break the postal unions – until voters realize a USPS bankruptcy would turn Forever Stamps into Never Stamps.

BoSacks flyin' high: Our consultant's
source of inspiration and insight

9) Congress’ next attempt at postal reform will be putting USPS up for sale. FedEx and UPS will quickly say, “No thanks.” However, the idea of buying out the middleman will intrigue Amazon, until it runs the numbers and realizes that, with proper accounting for pensions and retiree benefits, the Postal Service would be profitable. And you know how Amazon hates profits. To console himself, Jeff Bezos will buy another newspaper.

10) Amazon will go back to working on delivery drones.

11) Wal-Mart will announce the development of anti-drone missiles that can be mounted on store rooftops.

12) A major publisher will redesign its web site, then realize the snazzy new look and upgraded user experience can’t be seen on smartphones, which represent 80% of the site’s visitors.

13) “Big data” will be so hot that tech companies will try to differentiate themselves with new projects involving “Really Big Data,” “Huge Data,” and “Massive Data.”

A source of insomnia -- and much cursing

14) Tablets will be linked to insomnia. We’re not talking about the recent study proving that using e-readers before bedtime disrupts people’s circadian rhythms and makes it hard to fall asleep. (That’s so 2014!) We’re talking about MediaVest, the ad agency that is refusing to pay for the portion of a magazine’s circulation distributed via tablet editions. As Madame Marie put it, while meditating on a 1978 copy of High Times with the BoSacks centerfold, “Magazine advertising executives will stay up all night wondering whether to grow a pair and tell MediaVest it needs a rectal-cranial extraction.”

15) With tight supply, rising prices (for now), and strong dollar, the U.S. will be the market of choice for manufacturers of coated paper around the world. Because of low energy costs and the recent shuttering of inefficient mills, North American producers will be able and willing to protect market share by cutting prices.

16) As usual, “that damned newsstand” will be a frequent utterance of magazine publishers. But in 2015 the phrase will refer to the long-neglected Apple Newsstand for marketing iPad editions of magazines. The regular newsstand system – the one that sells printed magazines – will actually register gains in 2015 after years of declining sales.

Google What?

17) The content-marketing bubble will burst when non-publishing companies realize how few people are viewing their content and that it's not generating actual sales. Some will find it more efficient to use -- perish the thought -- paid advertising.

18) Trying to ride the next big wave, a former content-marketing/social-media/SEO consultant will publish a book called How Publishers Can Profit From Chris Christie-sized Data.

19) Web advertisers will have a radical idea: Only pay for ad impressions that are seen by actual human beings.

20) Google will pull the plug on Google Plus. No one will notice the difference.

The next big thing in social media

21) The big news in social media will be a simple new app that lets people share their pain and disappointment by sending out messages saying, simply, “Oy!”

22) Magazine publishers will pour lots of resources into cool new ancillary enterprises that they will brag about at industry conferences. A few of these ventures will actually turn a profit.

23) Some magazine ads will still include QR codes. And consumers still won’t bother scanning them.

24) “Oh, one last thing,” added Madame Marie, still clutching her sacred copy of High Times. ‘Linkbait’ headlines designed to exploit people’s curiosity will take over the Internet. Even your blog will join the trend.” She’s already been proven right on that one.

Settling the Great 'What Is A Magazine?' Debate

The definition of “magazine” and whether a magazine must be a printed product have been favorite topics of discussion, and debate, among publishing folks in recent years.

Publishing pundits BoSacks and Mr. Magazine have been sparring over the issue for years at various events and via social media (as described in Print vs. Digital: The Great Mr. Magazine vs. BoSacks Tweet-Off). I’m sure when they appear together at the Publishing Business Conference next week that they’ll put on the gloves once again – and that it will be quite a show.

But, for me, a circulation colleague recently put an end to the debate with a straightforward answer: “I don't care where you read it – print, tablet, laptop, or a big tattoo on your momma’s backside – if it counts toward ratebase, it’s a magazine.” (A more polite version of that quotation appears in my new article for Publishing Executive, 6 Things Magazine Publishers Should Stop Doing Now. Oh well, it’s not the first time I’ve been censored by PubExec’s editors.)

I’m still a print guy and mostly read magazines and newspapers in their dead-tree versions. And I’ve heard friends in the industry grumble about how the hype about tablet magazines isn’t paying off and that Apple Newsstand is even more dysfunctional than the real newsstand system.

But none of that matters. The point is that only one thing counts – whether we satisfy and even delight our customers, be they readers or advertisers. If we have readers who want our “paginated content” in digital form and advertisers who are willing to pay for those eyeballs, who are we to argue about whether that digital product is a real magazine?

For further reading:

• Is Ratebase the Magazine Industry's Crack Cocaine? explains what ratebase is -- and why so many in the publishing industry detest it. I feel their pain but haven't heard of a viable alternative. 
• Bezos Needs To Learn the First Rule of Newspaper Ownership scored a dubious hat trick: Three cyber-friends -- BoSacks, Denis Wilson of Publishing Executive, and Jim Sturdivant of Media Shepherd -- castigated me for focusing too much on pleasing advertisers rather than readers. But at least noted publishing consultant Alex Brown left a comment defending me, stating "the sweet, rosy, unicorn-filled future of publishing as something that readers/viewers will sustain has more cracks in it than we have mortar to patch."  
• A Troubling Sign for Tablet Magazines? Maybe their time will come, but so far tablet versions of magazines have been a disappointment for most publishers. Even tablet owners prefer to read magazines in print.

Is Ratebase the Magazine Industry's Crack Cocaine?

It’s time for magazine publishers to kick their addiction to ratebase, noted media commentator BoSacks said today.

Bo, AKA Bob Sacks, brought the issue up in response to my article today, Why Has Magazine Circulation Declined? Blame Advertising.

Ratebase, for the unitiated, is the minimum level of circulation guaranteed by a publisher. The publishers’ numbers are usually checked by an organization like the Alliance for Audited Media, which excludes things like unsold newsstand copies from the counts.

If an advertiser buys a $10,000 page in a publication with a 200,000-copy ratebase, it still pays only $10,000 if the issue’s circulation turns out to be 220,000. But if the number ends up at 199,000, you can bet there will be hell to pay and demands for refunds.

Publishers “need to destroy ratebase,” Bo told me in an email exchange this afternoon. “It is like crack cocaine. It is a great high for a while and then you are addicted and the crash is horrible and destructive.”

But how can we get rid of the ratebase concept in a way that is acceptable to advertisers? They want some assurances regarding how many people will see their ad and what the CPM (cost per thousand copies) will be. But they don’t want to be hit with surprise extra charges if the issue turns out to be a hit on the newsstand and blows past ratebase.

Ratebase is basically nonexistent for web advertising. Many internet ads are charged on a cost-per-click or cost-per-lead basis. Ads that are more branding oriented are often charged for a specific number of impressions, after which the campaign ends. If the campaign is running short of the promised impression count, the publisher can often compensate by extending the campaign, running the ad in additional locations, or throwing in something like an email sponsorship (or, unfortunately, a free print ad).

But such arrangements are more challenging for magazine ads, where the exact audited circulation count may not be known for many months after the issue is published.

Here, for the record, is today’s exchange with Bo:

Bo: Great article.. but It seems to me that you are creating a black and white issue. It's not just advertising. It is the whole damn formula. I have always hated rate base. I used to say it was a cancer, I've moved on with my analogies to it is like crack cocaine. It is a great high for a while and then you are addicted and the crash is horrible and destructive.

Newsstand sales are not down because of lost ad sales. Much of the public has moved on.

I think that good ads help magazines especially in niche titles the ads are like edit. But it is too simple to say the we are failing only because of a loss of ads.

Just one man's opinion.

I liked your piece anyway....


D. Eadward Tree: Thanks. I acknowledge that it's a bit more complicated than just advertising. But lower magazine ad revenue is the dominant reason that publishers are less willing to tolerate unprofitable circulation. Yes, newsstand sales are down (as are other sources like sweepstakes), but publishers have also found new ways to sign up profitable subscribers (like web promotions and email, not to mention tablet editions) that have taken up some of that slack. But where they can't replace newsstand sales, negative-remit, etc., they are generally cutting ratebase rather than propping it up. The ratebase concept is a mixed blessing at best. The web approach of paying per eyeball or per click is far more logical -- and more adapted to a rapidly changing world.


Bo: They need to destroy rate base.... but we are in agreement, as on most important issues.

By the way Newsstand sales are down 45% per Baird and Harrington from 2007.

Print vs. Digital: The Great Mr. Magazine vs. BoSacks Tweet-Off

Two of the U.S. magazine industry's leading pundits, Dr. Samir Husni and Robert Sacks, held an impromptu but insightful debate via Twitter tonight about the extent to which digital media will displace print media.

Husni, AKA "Mr. Magazine", director of the Magazine Innovation Center at the University of Mississippi, started the friendly argument with this comment about the hilarious French toilet paper ad that Adweek posted yesterday (shown below): This video reminds of a debate I had with my friend Mr. Magazine: some years back. Enjoy

Sacks, AKA BoSacks, took up the gauntlet: I'm glad you remember the good 'ol days. I agree paper has some important & vital uses. But digital reading will be predominate

Mr. Magazine: at least paper never leaves your side when you most needed, below and above 10,000 ft, with or without the cabin's door

The Recycled Debate: Can We 'Get Beyond the Stereotypical Industry-Environmental Relationship'?

My recent article about discussions between National Geographic and an environmental group has stirred up a debate about recycled paper between two industry leaders.

Publishing pundit BoSacks (AKA Robert Sacks) distributed the article to his 12,000-plus email list on Tuesday with one of his famous "BoSacks Speaks Out" rants, charging that, "Forcing recycled paper into the virgin fiber process of paper making is in most cases counter-productive to a successful green footprint." (He left a similar but briefer comment Sunday on Dead Tree Edition.)

Frank Locantore, director of Green America's Better Paper Project, responded today on Dead Tree Edition with a plea for "a constructive dialogue that has a goal of reaching agreement on metrics to determine what constitutes environmentally preferable paper." Locantore has been perhaps the leading advocate and promoter of using paper with recycled content in North American magazines.

I have corresponded with both men over the past few years and believe them to be people of good will who are worth heeding. (In fact, both submitted insightful comments on one of my first environmentally themed articles, I'm an environmental idiot!.) Therefore, in the interest of encouraging meaningful debate and dialog, I'm publishing both statements in their entirety:

Battleships or Motorboats: Which Publishing Model Will Thrive?

In the new world of multichannel publishing, is it better to be a big company with well-known brands or a small and nimble outfit?

Industry pundit BoSacks, who has worked for magazines at both kinds of outfits, has definitely made up his mind: “There are people making it on the web, but it’s not the big giants,” he told Dr. Joe Webb of WhatTheyThink? recently. And he doesn’t think the big publishers' recent scramble to change CEOs is paying off.

“They’re just shifting one corporate head for another, and they need to reach deep and get an entrepreneur there who understands this new environment that we’re in.” (Question for Bo: Does anyone really understand this new environment that we’re in? Or how it will look two years from now?)

A major publishing company “is a big battleship, and it’s awfully hard to turn,” BoSacks (AKA Bob Sacks) said. “When you spend 35 years learning how to make money with ink on paper and then you try to make that adjustment [to the web], that adjustment is not what you know best.”

But navigating stormy seas in a motorboat has its own challenges, entrepreneurial publishers tell me. Nimbleness alone doesn’t cut it when the waves are as tall as your boat is long. (Plenty of small publishers have shown that they too can run crappy, ill-conceived web sites.)

Facebook Is Doomed, BoSacks Says

There are those on Wall Street who say that Facebook will be worth $100 billion when it goes public next year, but the magazine industry's favorite pundit has a different view of the company's outlook.

"I'm prepared to predict the death of facebook. It's lost its way & in oriental terms has no face. Over-commercialism & abuse will kill it," BoSacks (AKA Bob Sacks) tweeted yesterday.

So who are you going to believe -- a bunch of greedy MBAs eager to cash in on the next big thing? (Remember when Enron was a can't miss?) Or a guy who helped found High Times magazine and then started what may be the first e-newsletter?

My money's on Bo. After all, he was a magazine production guy (you can always trust us), and he frequently quotes an obscure blog known as  Dead Tree Edition in his newsletters.

I just wonder what will happen to all the stuff people have put on their Facebook pages when that social network circles the drain. Maybe they'll be able to port it over to their Friendster accounts.

Turmoil in Magazine Land: Did Folio Diss BoSacks?

Folio: posted an interesting blog about online news aggregators today that was made more interesting by this aside near the end:

"I can think of at least one well-known media news aggregator who not only pulls publishers’ headlines and leads for his e-newsletters but posts full news stories, verbatim—and sells ads against them," wrote Jason Fell. "Sure, he links back to the original story, but who is going to click back to the publisher’s Web site when they can read the whole piece directly from the newsletter?"

Bob Sacks, alias BoSacks, agrees with me that he is almost certainly the target of Fell's ire. More than 11,000 people in media-related industries, especially the magazine industry, receive his e-mailed newsletter -- which is mostly media-related articles he forwards, often with commentary and sometimes with one of his famous BoRants.

"Yes. I do fit the M.O. described in the article," Sacks emailed me. "I have been at this a long time. I have tried to save every letter from publishers and writers begging me to pick up their stories -- and also the many thank-you letters for doing so."

I would much rather have one of my articles mentioned by "blurb-and-a-link" than having aggregators publish the entire article. A blurb at Postalnews.com brings at least a thousand visitors, while having an entire article on a prominent Web site will lead to only a handful of links. (Links from emails are hard to track.)

But I have no quarrel with BoSacks because he provides proper attribution and links. He also tries not to pull often from any one source -- though he did send out three Folio: articles last week, including two by Fell. Besides, reformatting by Constant Contact software often makes BoSacks emails so hard to read that many people probably end up linking to the source Web site instead.
 
For an obscure, anonymous, part-time blogger like me, the exposure from BoSacks is worth more than the lost traffic from people seeing an article in one of his emails rather than on my site. (Besides, I'm not very good at "monetizing" the traffic here, which only averages about 1,000 people a day. You could help by clicking on one of the ads, you know.)

But as someone who has sent a few cease-and-desist emails to Web sites that used my content without permission or compensation, I'm sympathetic to Fell's annoyance when he concludes: "In an age when publishers are struggling mightily to make nickels from their online endeavors, shouldn’t this aggregator offer some sort of revenue sharing program?" Folio: may be so widely read by magazine people that having an article become a BoSacks email does little to bring new readers to the magazine or its Web site.

For the record, Folio: always plays fair with my blog, providing proper attribution and links when it cites my articles, which is not often enough. At times it seems to have gone out of its way not to mention one of my "scoops" when it picks up the same story, but Folio: always puts original research and thought into its article rather than just rewriting me.

Also, for the record, BoSacks does not know the true identity of D. Eadward Tree.

"I can't tell you have many people ask me who you are," he wrote me. "I always speak the truth, which helps my newsletter be what it is. So I tell them I have no idea. They don't believe me. I say, 'No, really, I have no idea.' They say, 'OK, so you won't tell me.'"

Bob, don't expect me to tell you, either -- unless you take Fell up on that revenue-sharing thing.

BoSacks 1, Folio: 0

Did you see on Wednesday (Nov. 5) that Folio:’s Web site had the “news” that paper prices have apparently peaked? (It’s not worthy of a link.)

Dead Tree Edition broke that story five days earlier, and BoSacks distributed it Sunday afternoon -- which led to a flurry of customer phone calls to paper salespeople on Monday morning. Thanks for the plug, Bob. I promise to stop making jokes about what you might have been smoking during your High Times days.

How is it that BoSacks, one guy with a Web site and bad hair, continually provides faster and better coverage of certain magazine-industry issues than the leading trade publication for the industry? Because he recognizes that the old “not-written-here” mentality doesn’t cut it in the age of Web 2.0.