Distribution of material between magazine and website
Fri, Mar 18 2011, 2:06PM
I wonder why an editorial choice was made to put Philip Clark's article about film music on the Gramaphone website and not in the magazine? His article was by far the better written and most interesting of all the film music articles. I've feared for a long time that there's a masterplan to slowly phase the magazine out in favour of the website. Please tell me that's not true.
Sat, Mar 19 2011, 7:11PM
#2
RE: magazine and website
Hi Simon - Thanks for your warm praise re: the film piece. It's much appreciated. Noting Martin's reassurance that there's no dastardly plan afoot to phase the mag out, another reason my piece appeared on the website, rather than in the print edition, was because I went on unexpectedly early paternity leave at the end of January as the issue was being prepared. You see - no conspiracy!
Sun, Mar 20 2011, 12:22PM
#3
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Personally, I think it'd be good to see the magazine go and have everything on the site instead. The magazine is quite a rip-off, really. Why should people have to pay quite a lot of money for other people's advertising??
If we're going to have adverts, let the content be free - as on a website. Otherwise, chuck out all the ads, saving 50% of the paper in each edition and all the expensive coloured inks - and then the magazine might be worth its cover price. Though it'd still save trees and pollution by making it website-only.
Sun, Mar 20 2011, 12:31PM
#4
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Nice business plan, Wigmaker: only problem is, the adverts pay for rather more than just the paper they occupy, and without advertising revenue the cover price of the magazine would have to be considerably higher.
Similarly, the website is only free because it's subsidised by the magazine revenues: very few websites – beyond those selling directly and set up with the express purpose of so doing – make sufficient money to keep themselves going.
Sun, Mar 20 2011, 4:12PM
#5
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Personally, I think it'd be good to see the magazine go and have everything on the site instead. The magazine is quite a rip-off, really.
Some of us still like to read without staring at a screen, and in places and at times when access to the internet is neither practical nor possible. Leave the magazine be and let the web site complement as it does now, it is still good value for money.
I like the adverts too - does that make me sad?
Sun, Mar 20 2011, 4:21PM
#6
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Why should people have to pay quite a lot of money for other people's advertising??
Toupee or not toupee, that is the question Wigmaker.
Sun, Mar 20 2011, 5:01PM
#7
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Nice business plan, Wigmaker: only problem is, the adverts pay for rather more than just the paper they occupy, and without advertising revenue the cover price of the magazine would have to be considerably higher.
I forgot to add - cut half the staff! (I won't say who.)
the website is only free because
...because if it wasn't, it wouldn't get any visitors (cf. The Times online).
Some of us still like to read without staring at a screen, and in places and at times when access to the internet is neither practical nor possible.
Print out? Do you mean to say that you'd rather cut trees down and pollute waters than read from a screen?
I like the adverts too - does that make me sad?
Could be...
Toupee or not toupee, that is the question Wigmaker.
Shouldn't that be: "Hat? is the question"?
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 5:56AM
#8
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Thank you Martin and thank you Philip for reassurances given.
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 8:03AM
#9
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
Nice business plan, Wigmaker: only problem is, the adverts pay for rather more than just the paper they occupy, and without advertising revenue the cover price of the magazine would have to be considerably higher.
I forgot to add - cut half the staff! (I won't say who.)
See, I knew it was worth trying to give you a sensible answer...
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 8:38AM
#10
RE: Distribution of material
Print out? Do you mean to say that you'd rather cut trees down and pollute waters than read from a screen?
I'm sure Gramophone is produced only from the finest recycled paper. :winkeye:
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 9:50AM
#11
RE: Distribution of material
[ I'm sure Gramophone is produced only from the finest recycled paper. :winkeye:
Yes, and the website is published on recycled bits of internet.
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 10:18AM
#12
RE: Distribution of material
Don't forget you can also buy the magazine in a digital edition - http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/345/1217 - so you can have the magazine without the paper, and then keep the website running in a second tab (and the Gramophone Player in a third). And save money too. (Though I should add that all of that actually takes more staff, not fewer, to prepare...)
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 11:32AM
#13
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
See, I knew it was worth trying to give you a sensible answer...
All right, I *will* say who: the Audio section. Pedlars of spectacularly overpriced equipment to those readers with more money than sense.
I'm sure Gramophone is produced only from the finest recycled paper. :winkeye:
It's funny, but not funny. I'm sure management can justify their ecological recklessness.
Yes, and the website is published on recycled bits of internet.
That's not really an answer, is it: magazine AND internet vs. internet alone?
Don't forget you can also buy the magazine in a digital edition - http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/345/1217 - so you can have the magazine without the paper,
Indeed. Got it. Thanks.
(Though I should add that all of that actually takes more staff, not fewer, to prepare...)
How is that even possible, when the paper edition gets prepared digitally anyway?
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 11:51AM
#14
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
I've always skipped over the audio department (as well as the Jazz and World Music sections) but imagine some readers have use for them. I'm not much interested in sacred music from the 17th Century either, but it would be kinda priggish for me to suggest they cater only to me.
As for the ads, I'm afraid I can't do without them. Its how I keep up with current releases. Here in the states, there is a dearth of classical music shops; the only brick and mortar store I frequent has to special order everything for me. The ads in GRAMOPHONE are essential. In the 90's, the first thing I used to do when I bought my copy was flip thru to find the two pages of Naxos adverts, to see what obscure goodies they were releasing.
Mon, Mar 21 2011, 12:17PM
#15
RE: Distribution of material between magazine and website
All right, I *will* say who: the Audio section. Pedlars of spectacularly overpriced equipment to those readers with more money than sense.
Thank you for your not entirely unexpected response, but I fear that would hardly meet your criteria of halving the staff of the magazine, and would only actually remove five pages.
And I am afraid there are no pedlars involved in the audio section: the purpose, as in the rest of the magazine, is to give an opinion, not to sell.
At which point, I think I shall bow out of this discussion, if such it is.
Hello Simon,
I'm delighted you liked Philip Clark's article. But just to reassure you that there is absolutely no plan to phase the magazine out in favour of the website. We are constantly exploring ways to use the site to complement the magazine, whether that be to exploit the greater scope for length (and number) of articles that the web allows, or by drawing on the online Gramophone Archive, or because it might make more sense to run an article with audio or video as part of it. We hope readers will come to appreciate what each form of media contributes best to our coverage of classical music - and most importantly that they will read and enjoy both.
Editor, Gramophone