Let’s start with the facts. <\/p>\n
1. The newspaper industry is dying (except for local papers!). <\/p>\n
2. Smart phones, e-Readers and tablets are selling like crazy. <\/p>\n
3. More and more web traffic is on mobile devices. <\/p>\n
4. Sales of e-Books are rising dramatically. <\/p>\n
5. Publishers are all talking about the transition to digital. <\/p>\n
Given all that, you can understand why people would assume that print is dying and publishers should hurry up and rush to digital. <\/p>\n
It’s not that clear. Let’s examine why newspapers are dying. <\/p>\n
First, why did we have all these papers to begin with? Why was there a New York Times,<\/i> a Washington Post,<\/i> a Chicago Tribune,<\/i> etc., all basically reporting on the same stuff? <\/p>\n
A few reasons. The paper had to be printed, then delivered on trucks to distribution areas where kids on bicycles could bring it to your home. A Washington paper could hardly be delivered to Chicago, or vice versa. <\/p>\n
Also, the papers had local news, local advertisements, local job postings and local classified ads. <\/p>\n
Think how much of that has changed. Job postings are on Monster.com. Classified ads are on Craigslist. I can get the Chicago Tribune online<\/a> faster than any truck and kid on a bicycle could hope to deliver it. <\/p>\n There is simply no reason to have several national newspapers any more. That’s why they’re dying. <\/p>\n Now think — how much of that applies to magazines or newsletters? Almost none of it.<\/b> Most notably, magazines and newsletters don’t rely on classified ads for a big share of their revenue, and it really doesn’t matter if your magazine is printed in New York or Topeka. Local delivery is irrelevant. <\/p>\n