COLUMN: 'Game Mag Weaseling': A Question of Respect
August 2, 2009 12:00 AM |
['Game Mag Weaseling' is a weekly column by Kevin Gifford which documents the history of video game magazines, from their birth in the early '80s to the current day.]
On his personal weblog yesterday, Dan Amrich (former editor at Official Xbox Magazine US who left recently to work on a new, secret Future project) brought up a point that I've also been thinking a great deal about lately: Why do gamers (and online media) seem to willfully ignore print media even when they are first with something?
OXM mentioned in the September issue that Guitar Hero 5 would let 360 users put their custom avatars into the game. That news was not noticed by the online media -- in particular, the game blogs whose lifeblood is bite-sized news like this -- until yesterday, when Activision sent word out on its press-release spam list.
Someone brought up on Joystiq that OXM was first with the news some two weeks ago, but that led to the classic "Fuck print"/"Only good when I'm on the shitter" backlash that shows up whenever a print mag gets mentioned on sites like these. (It's little surprise, considering that the most prolific commenters on sites like Joystiq establish names for themselves not for their smart, useful feedback, but by being as arrogant and sassy-pants as possible.)
In his entry, Amrich sees this as laziness on the part of blog editors. His argument: Relying on forum tips and PR people and ignoring the print press is not doing one's part as a game "journalist," which requires research and insight into what you're reporting on. I agree with him completely on this point, but I think he's fighting an uphill battle, because for the past five years -- despite the diligent efforts of editors and art people -- American game-mag publishers have been subliminally teaching their audience that print mags are disposable, insignificant, and only good for when you're on the shitter.
What am I talking about? Mainly, the cheap-o subscriptions. As I've discussed in the past, many magazines in the US -- not just game ones, although game mags joined in the practice pretty quick -- price their subscriptions as loss-leaders, a fair bit below the actual cost of production, printing and postage. This is because cheap subs boost circulation, and higher circulation entices advertisers...theoretically.
What it's also done is cheapen the value of print in readers' eyes. Even worse, that model doesn't work anymore, because even before the current recession, advertisers were running away from print in droves -- every US magazine in existence is smaller than it was in 2006, to say nothing of 2001.
This needs to change if print media wants a place of its own in video games. I'm not saying that magazines need to get more expensive -- I'm saying they have to offer a product more tied to the newsstand and more worth whatever money is asked for. You're beginning to see some very small baby steps toward this, what with Future putting out legions of newsstand-only specials and using better-quality paper stock for the newsstand editions of their mags.
Editors and publishers have always rated how successful a magazine issue is by how well it sold in the newsstand -- readers who buy a mag from the bookstore make more money for publishers than a subscriber, and unlike a subscriber, you know for sure the newsstand buyer actually wants the issue in question. And now that advertising is losing its place at every magazine's top priority, the readers need to retake that spot in a real way.
This is perhaps a message I've harped on before, but if print media sees itself as lacking respect in the game industry, then it needs to change itself. It needs to focus less on advertising -- it doesn't have any choice in that respect, really -- and more on product. Why does Edge get so much advertising from development outfits and game companies, far more than the size of its readership would seem to demand? Why is Game Informer now just as thin as any other video-game print title, despite now beating Time in circulation?
I think it's because one publication is "just" a video game magazine, and one is a perfectly-targeted, tightly-crafted, saleable product. Europe's print media still runs on a different set of economics from America, of course, but I think this comparison still has merit.
If US print media wants to survive -- screw thriving, I'm just talking about surviving -- it'll need fewer GIs and more Edges, fewer circulation machines and more small-time outlets that live and die by the dedication of each individual reader.
[Kevin Gifford breeds ferrets and runs Magweasel, a really cool weblog about games and Japan and "the industry" and things. In his spare time he does writing and translation for lots and lots of publishers and game companies.]
Categories: Column: Game Mag Weaseling
4 Comments
Good point. I have to admit, I never thought the loss-leader thing was as damaging as you describe it to be. I always bought into the logic of "it's so cheap, why *wouldn't* you subscribe?"
And yes, traditionally, that has powered high circ numbers, which in turn powers ad revenue. But as you point out, tradition isn't what it used to be.
I would love to see your reader focus become reality. I wish we could do things like Edge here. I have always assumed that the smaller national distribution factors into some of their success, but the reason they're respected is content and execution. With quality paper and slick design, Edge still feels like a deluxe magazine experience.
But here, would enough people be willing to pay for that premium product if (when?) the ad model disappears? When I was at GamePro, we'd get letters from younger readers asking why we ran so many ads. I would tell them the truth -- ad pages pay for most of the costs of the magazine, and without them, each issue would cost about $20, and nobody would want to buy it. Would a boost in quality (in all respects -- manufacturing, design, editorial content) really help mags turn the corner? Or would they simply say "If I'm not buying your magazine for $25 a year, what makes you think I want to pay $25 an issue?" The publication would have to have high-quality content and the publisher would have to have high-quality balls to take that business risk.
You're right, the current model has to change, and I do believe that quality wins out -- but I don't know if the current low price of subscription is really a key culprit. I still see that annual price as one of magazines' greatest assets -- the low barrier for loyalty, combined with earlier-than-newsstand delivery, makes it enticing. And for OXM, which comes with a disc, it helps offset the fact that you can't browse a polybagged issue at newsstand anyway. Why not just get it at home?
Dan | August 2, 2009 1:52 AM
I agree. I'm in the UK, so I'm lucky in that I get the quality from titles like Edge, GamesTM and Retro Gamer.
But I'm also aware of the US mags, and boy - have you guys got it bad.
It's not about the price of the subscriptions, it's about what you get. And with US mags, what you get are advertising pamphlets which are small, thin, and printed on cheap stock.
They have the feel of a freesheet, even though their contents may he of a higher quality. But the thing is, freesheets are thriving, and have begun to attract premium advertising campaigns from top brands.
Sure, the freesheets don't cover games. But they change the perception of media, and people will compare the two, and the games mag will come out as offering little value. (I'm comparing UK freesheets to US mags - so I could be wrong)
That being said. It is an issue of bloggers being lazy, and generally being worse. You get what you pay for in the end, and in the age of free - we've settled for lower quality writing, misleading flamebait headlines, regurgitated content, and "journalists" waiting for the news to come to their desk - instead of going to find it.
hahnchen | August 2, 2009 2:50 AM
Hahnchen touched upon this, but I think the quality of advertising can help or hamper the enjoyability of a magazine. In most game mags, you see ads for Edge shaving cream, Bowflex (in Game Informer's case), third-party controllers, and other crap no one cares about. I was surprised to see an ad campaign for Gears of War 2 - a game that needed no advertising - and it had a great design to boot. Another great ad I thought was for the Sega game MadWorld, which parodied the weight loss ads you see online. (It had the game's protagonist holding a chainsaw with the text reading, "Lose 40 lbs. in 5 seconds. Ask me how.") I remember reading a digital game mag once which had ads for mortgage rates and online banks, and I was suprised to find that I preferred those over the crap you see in print mags.
To tell the truth, the quality mags like Games TM and Edge I wouldn't dare bring into the bathroom for risk of flagging it. I wouldn't even bring them onto the subway to work (I live in NYC) since you'd have to bend the magazines outwards to read them. The crap paper quality of US mags, though, lets me do just that and I have no qualms with it. That's why most people dispose of them after they're read, I think, and why they are more loath to throw away foreign editions: not because they're more uncommon or expensive, but because they're beautiful.
You know how I know print still has a chance, even for game mags? Because there was one called Massive, and it was about MMOs. We're talking about a magazine which wasn't a fluff piece unlike what you'd find in Beckett's or the advertorials in PC Gamer and where the vast majority of its readers played only one - World of Warcraft - and literally all of them had computers and high speed Internet (otherwise, how would you play an MMO?), and yet it still remained sustainable - the magazine only shuttered when its publisher went bankrupt for spamming Myspace.
Henry | August 2, 2009 1:05 PM
I don't think subscriptions being a loss leader was the problem. I'd argue that it is almost the opposite. When it comes to value offered, print magazines are *overpriced*.
As the internet has grown, so has the availability of free information. This information is abundant. It is also relatively immediate versus print's lead times.
Yes, print gets some exclusives, but this weighed against the perception that nearly everything gets noted online before a magazine puts it into the average reader's hands, if a magazine even notes it at all. And print has another disadvantage here in that some of their legitimate exclusives are broken online the moment that readers do receive said books, and sometimes even a week or so in advance of release.
Magazines can try to compete on presentation values, but that is expensive and makes them even more niche products.
And to be blunt, videogame print has earned a somewhat poor reputation over the years. Magazines shrank. Reviews and policies at various publications have repeatedly drawn questions. Print was slow to even notice the realities of the internet. It isn't just print, really. Videogame print is hurt by the general decline in respect for videogame reporting, whether the incidents be print mags or large online sites. (Online sites handle it better simply because, barring subscription stuff, people aren't actually paying money directly for those annoyances.)
Billy Bissette | August 3, 2009 12:22 AM