« April 2020 | Home | June 2020 »

Issue for May 2020

Condé Nast Pledges Carbon Neutrality by 2030

Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 11:38 PM

In the news: The magazine publisher plans sweeping changes to eliminate supply-chain emissions in the next decade.

Condé Nast is stepping up to address climate change. Rachel Koning Beals of MarketWatch.com reports that the publishing giant intends to be carbon-neutral by 2030. Beals writes that "92% of the company's greenhouse gas emissions arose from its supply chain, and not corporate operations, in 2018. If the company continues to chip away at about 10% of those supply-chain emissions every year, it believes it can hit its carbon-neutral goal by 2030."

Although this is a ten-year plan, the company isn't wasting any time getting started: Beals reports that they've "set an initial target of a 20% [reduction] in corporate emissions by the end of 2021. It will also work with suppliers to transition to more sustainable materials, with a commitment to use 100% sustainably-sourced paper, certified by the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), by the end of 2021."

Read more about Condé Nast's ten-year plan here.

Also Notable

Mental Health Challenges at Ad Agencies

Telework has taken a mental toll at a lot of ad agencies. Kristina Monllos of Digiday.com writes that "some agency employees say that it's now easier than ever to work longer hours than usual which can quickly lead to burnout." This has long been a problem in the teleworking world, but companies are seeing it on a much wider scale now that a plurality, if not a majority, are working from home. Ad agencies are experimenting with different solutions to these mental health challenges, including "tweaking vacation policies, encouraging employees to use telemedicine apps, telling employees to figure out a flexible work schedule that fits their needs as well as leading meditation workshops," says Monllos. Read more here.

Industry Magazines Adapting in the Covid-19 Era

Industry magazines are having to improvise on the fly as the Covid-19 pandemic continues. Greg Dool of Foliomag.com wrote this month about the challenges this magazines sector faces and how some publishers are rolling with the punches. Some are shifting to digital-only formats because their print issues are typically mailed to professionals at their now abandoned offices, and others are tweaking their editorial calendars to better serve their readers. But the changes aren't all geared toward the consumer; publishers and human resource departments are finding ways to keep telecommuting staffers feeling engaged, socialized, and mentally well. One magazine, Dool reports, went so far as to throw a graduation party and baby showers for its employees on Zoom. Read more here.

Layoffs at Condé Nast

Earlier this month, Condé Nast laid off nearly 100 of its employees, reported Jessica Bursztynsky of CNBC.com. In addition, she said, the company would furlough 100 other staffers and cut hours for several others. The shake-up comes as publishers across the board are losing ad dollars: Vox, Buzzfeed, and others have also furloughed and/or laid off staff in recent weeks. Read more here.

Shifting Issue Schedules in the Covid-19 Crisis

"September Issues Will Be Exactly What They Say on the Cover This Year," reads a headline this week on WWD.com. Kathryn Hopkins examines the shifting publication schedules of some glossy fashion magazines in response to ad challenges and other scheduling issues presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. She writes: "Nearly every media outlet [is] reporting shrinking ad revenues despite record engagement in many cases." Read more here.

Publishers and Community Outreach

Publishers are facing a myriad of challenges these days, but several are making the time to help the communities they serve. See this article from Folio.com for a round-up of titles giving back to their communities.

Add your comment.

Posted in (RSS)

Changes -- and More to Come

Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 11:35 PM

Publishers are at a disadvantage against social media companies. Could President Trump’s recently waged war on social media present a unique opportunity?

By William Dunkerley

"The Times They Are A-Changin'" is the title of a 1960s Bob Dylan song. It seems to capture the powerful mood for change of that era.

Today, mood or no mood, we are facing powerful changes in the magazine publishing business. Some reflect the unfortunate realities imposed upon us by the Covid-19 crisis.

Adapting Content to the Present Moment

For many publishers advertising revenues have greatly diminished or even disappeared. For others, the very subjects they publish about have disappeared or gone into remission.

Think of the sports magazines that cover sports that cannot be played. Or fashion magazines. Take Vogue, for example. How can its writers write about fashion when clothes are not being manufactured or marketed or purchased? It's true that people are buying clothes online, but sales are being fulfilled from existing inventories.

Actually, Vogue came up with an innovative response. It published a special issue, "Our Common Thread: Creativity in a Time of Crisis." The editor explains, "We have created a document of this moment for the years to come: a poignant reminder of how we were all acutely missing the miracles of everyday life and the joy that they can bring."

Trump’s War on Social Media

Now, on a very different subject, we face a change ahead that may be positive for us. It involves the unlikely matter of a feud President Trump is waging against social media giants. Trump became aggrieved when Twitter publicly questioned the factualness of a couple of his tweets. In response, the president wants to remove a privileged status the social media platforms have operated under.

That's created a big political tiff. The Trump side claims the platforms have been playing an editorial role they're not entitled to. The other side asserts that the president just wants to censor social media to his favor.

How could any of that possibly benefit magazine publishers? It is no secret that we are in competition with social media. We're both sources of content for readers. If consumers continue to get more and more of their content online for free, it will work to the disadvantage of magazines. We lose subscription income and we lose audience size, which in turn diminishes our attractiveness to advertisers.

The Publisher’s Burden -- and Missed Opportunity?

As publishers we shoulder a burden that our social media competitors can virtually ignore. We've got to stand behind our content; they don't. Certainly this is one thing that distinguishes us. Our brand reputation tells readers that they can rely upon what we publish. The social media sites, however, are full of fly-by-night content that the site owners rarely scrutinize. Unfortunately, I must say that many publishers have not capitalized on that advantage. But still it's there.

An extension of that burden arises in the area of libel and liability. We can be successfully sued if our content is actionable. The social media sites enjoy protection from that.

A classic almost 30-year-old case involving Soldier of Fortune magazine illustrates this. According to the January 12, 1993, Los Angeles Times, "in a setback for the publishing industry, the Supreme Court Monday let stand a $4.3-million damage verdict against a magazine for printing a classified ad that led to the contract slaying of an Atlanta businessman. "

That same Times article explained, "A US appeals court ruled last year that Soldier of Fortune magazine can be held liable because its ad posed an 'unreasonable risk of ... substantial harm to the public,' a ruling the justices left intact." The ad in question had read, "Gun for Hire."

The Laws Shielding Social Media from Content Liability

Social media companies have been hiding behind a provision in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. It reads:

"Civil Liability -- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of -- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)."

The aforementioned paragraph (1) says:

"(1) Treatment of Publisher or Speaker -- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

All this language seems pretty confused to me. It's what you might expect legislators in the mid-1990s to have written about the then-little-understood internet and its social media. Neither Facebook nor Twitter even existed then. Facebook launched in 2004, Twitter in 2006.

Now the underlying question is whether a social media platform is a publisher or simply a common carrier of information for which someone else is responsible. That's a critical question.

Telephone companies function as common carriers. If two parties cook up a crooked deal over the phone, no one can sue the phone company over that. The telephone companies don't vet the content of our communications.

Publishers do vet and edit the content they produce and must face the consequences if they allow illegalities or libelous statements into publication. It's a costly process that requires great skill.

And that's the competitive disadvantage we're given.

William Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.

Add your comment.

Posted in (RSS)

Free Assistance and Recovery Help

Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 11:30 PM

During this time of crisis, we stand ready to answer any specific questions our readers may have, time permitting. You can contact us at:

crisis-help@stratnewsletter.com.

When the national health crisis subsides, publishers unfortunately should not expect to easily resume business as usual. Economists are predicting tough times ahead. In addition, the impact of the crisis may well result in different expectations of us on the part of our audiences. STRAT will provide a series of articles to help you all through the period of recovery and readjustment.

Posted in (RSS)

« April 2020 | Top | June 2020 »