Conde Nast Editors Not 'Overreacting' to Web
There is a very interesting article from AdAge.
By Bob Sacks
Published: December 5, 2008
There is a very interesting article from AdAge.com today about the Conde Nast editors not 'Overreacting' to the Web. The article is penned by the redoubtable Nat Ives.
It’s always interesting to read a seasoned editor’s take on progress and the current technologic dilemmas confronting us all, which sometimes seems something like the captain of the Titanic; Iceberg? Did someone say, Iceberg? There will be no Icebergs on my watch! I absolutely forbid it!
Well, Nat had a very interesting summation that I thought I would pass along.
Mr. Remnick, editor in chief at The New Yorker. "protested. "We're not sanguine," he said. He attends meetings on the subject all the time, he said. Radio didn't banish newspapers, either, and television didn't eradicate radio. "Magazines that mean something, that have carved out a space in the culture, will persist," Mr. Remnick said.
Here is Nat’s reply:
No one acknowledged, however, the huge loss of stature and relevance that each medium suffered as new media encroached on its essential turf: people's time. Yes, TV didn't kill radio, but it did replace it as a primary source of entertainment and news, and force it to change formats and experiment with new ways to stay relevant. Radio hasn't gone away, but it doesn't hold the place in American culture that it did in the days of FDR's fireside chats. Broadcast networks' nightly news shows once loomed large over the national conversation; now people find it increasingly hard to watch.
Nat hit the nail on the head. Radio didn’t go away, TV didn’t go away and neither will print. The only relevant question that remains is where in the future will the predominate readers be, and how can we monetize that group with our various operations and franchises? Staying on course and ignoring the iceberg ahead is a very bad idea.