The news that BusinessWeek is now up for sale puts to rest any doubt that traditional publications are in a death spiral. This may be old news to my counterparts in Silicon Valley, who have been writing off “traditional publications” for years. But I always felt there would be a handful of business publication stalwarts–BW, the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, etc–that would resist the tide, somehow survive, even thrive again one day.
Now I’m not so sure, and the future of another big name publication–and the lives of 190 BW editors–is in limbo.
Obviously, the golden age of print publications–and journalism–is now long over. I was lucky enough to be one of those journalists during the 1980s, writing for BusinessWeek for almost a decade (bureau chief in Houston and Denver). I departed in early 1992 to take a job a senior writer at Intel, where I eventually moved into marketing and pioneered a national educational outreach effort, becoming Intel’s “PC Dad.” That would bring TV and radio appearances, a book deal, syndicated column and later a career shift, into consulting.
I never looked back, but even today, I fully appreciate what journalism–and BW in particular–did for me.
BW provided me the skills to research, master and write about complex subjects quickly and the courage to tackle tough issues. That often meant knocking heads with CEOs (ex: Enron’s CEO Ken Lay) and PR departments. My writing became tighter, more polished, more “efficient”–and more effective. I became highly proficient in rooting out the “story” in every assignment. Ultimately I learned to become a true communicator.
But it was more than that. For almost a decade I got to work with some of the top journalists in the field, and within an efficient editorial and publishing system that, despite some glitches, worked well. Damn well.
The best examples came when I was tested.
Once, early on, I was assigned to write a news story detailing the downfall of an independent refiner in New Orleans. The story included accusations of how wreckless management doomed the company, leading to a Chapt. 11 filing. My editor complained when I handed in the first version of the story: “not tough enough” and too many holes, he barked.
I went back and reviewed all my research, which included more than a dozen interviews, and reworked the story. The next version was tougher, tighter and more solid. After two more editors reviewed, and we went over all the facts; it was approved and published two days later.
The next day I got a call from the president of the small company. He was furious and ranted on for several minutes, how he was going to “kick my ass” and hire a high-powered law firm out of DC (which had just won a well-publicized case against the Washington Post) to pursue legal action. The guy had already fired his PR manager and was now moving on to the source of his problem, me … and BusinessWeek.
He did hire the law firm, and a week or so later I was forced to turn my notes over to the lawyers of McGraw Hill, the parent company of BW. The two sides went back and forth for a few weeks but MH wasn’t budging; the law firm eventually backed off.
This was way back in the 1980s, not even a decade after Watergate broke.
That refiner might get an easier ride today. What blogger is going to tackle an investigative story or contentious subject like this –or risk a legal assault?
To be clear, I’m not arguing to hang on to an outdated business model. This IS an old, tired industry, badly in need of a revamp. It’s been weakening for years–wouldn’t it have been great if a newspaper (ala Watergate) had broken the Madoff story?
Meantime, bloggers and “citizen journalists” have brought new passion and energy into the business. Who couldn’t be impressed with the grass-roots reporting and video clips that recently came out of Iran?
But the system we are ushering in so quickly is not enough to fill the void being left by the old guard (despite all their weaknesses). Sure, anyone with a pulse and a Wordpress account can blog. But who will break the tough stories? Who will uncover the political and business corruption? Who will do the hard reporting, the hard work?
Sorry, it won’t be the Huffington Post.
I’d like to think that BusinessWeek could be completely revamped to be more interactive, more open, more fluid, starting with its online edition. Stories could be more organic, allowing for even higher levels of interaction on Businessweek.com. Citizen journalists could play a role, while even providing a platform for the business subjects. Imagine if a CEO could give us a glimpse behind the scenes of their daily routines?
The truth, though, is its editors, led by editor in chief John A. Byrne, have already launched more than a dozen blogs and are slowly moving this direction. The problem is that even these changes will not be enough to help the ailing print publication (circ 936,000), which is bleeding red ink and heavily dependent on advertising (down more than a third in 1h 09). BW’s rivals Fortune and Forbes aren’t faring much better.
Options and potential buyers appear to be few and far between, and even in the best circumstances BW would likely fetch a very modest price. They need more money and more time–and right now, both appear to be in short supply.
Related posts:
Excellent commentary Mark. Like you, I worry that the 4th Estate’s loss is everyone’s loss, especially those who love freedom and fear those who might take it away.
I agree with Lewis. Solid journalism has been on the wane. With many media outlets owned by Corporate America and their biases, to the proliferation of blogging and social networking (which are not held to any codes of ethics or fact-checking standards), how can we know that what we hear is the truth – the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I think the issues with print are much more complex than most people in Silicon Valley make them out to be (“Print is dead.”). There’s no question that fewer and fewer readers care to wait for a once-a-week look backward. But that doesn’t mean all print must go away. And it doesn’t mean all the BusinessWeeks of the world have to fold.
But if publishers and editors don’t realize the complexity of the solutions required, they will.
Here’s one example you cited about BW: “its editors–launched more than a dozen blogs–” I don’t recall a single study in the past five years that said readers were looking to online versions of offline media properties for “blogs.” Its just that editors went with a simple solution …. what everyone else was doing. There’s a world of difference in TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington and some unknown journalist blogging from somewhere inside the nether reaches of BW.
That’s just one example of dozens of things gone wrong. If “professional” publications continue to chase after and mimic what the “nonprofessionals” are doing, they’ll only hasten their demise.
I echo Lewis Green’s comments – when it pertains to newspapers. But I’m not so sure at current course and speed that magazines have much worth saving.
Nobody ever said change is easy or that it will come about without some things being worse than they were before. That said, there are media outlets that are monetizing their content in ways that may be viable, see this list for some great examples: http://www.minonline.com/news/Top-5-Paid-Models-Worth-Watching_11526.html
Thanks for some good food for thought, as always, Mark!
Well done Mark and obviously written in a fashion the tells me that you are a seasoned veteran. I am curious bout the future and you raised something that made me think of how that future may be shaped. What happens to the citizen journalist or blogger that does a piece on the CEO as you did with your backing of a legal team and a bank account? I would do a piece like that or any blogger could, but will the CEO be so quick to sue if they most they can get from me is in line behind my 3rd mortgage? I am interested on how this will play in all facets.
Hi Mark, you left BW when I was starting to read it as a young man in college. BW stories have always been authoritative and it’s a real shame that some speak about blogs in the same sentence. Yes ads are down but not everywhere not even in all the traditional magazine publications. Would MH kick themselves when ad spending picks up and they had eliminated an iconic magazine? You bet. Thomas, founder, Sonshi.com
thanks for the (good) comments.
As we move into the digital age, information does become more of a commodity. But the analysis of that information is not a commodity, so how does a BusinessWeek leverage its expertise? The market is telling it that it doesn’t value the current approach/model.
I went through another major overhaul of the mag when I first started in the early 80s. They gave us bylines (yes, bylines), made us start writing commentaries and writing for a broader audience-more people focused, more glitzy, entertaining, etc. The pub needs an even bigger overhaul now, integrating its online/print efforts and become more “social” in nature, more engaging and dynamic, more interesting (I agree, this must go beyond just throwing up new blogs).
Kevin: Many readers of BW and other pubs like the Economist would disagree that there’s “not much worth saving with magazines”. I think the argument is whether there’s a business model to sustain it. Perhaps the bigger point transcends this issue: Look beyond the print version into what really makes a magazine and you’ll see value including:
* The brand (Businessweek still has an enormous brand ..it’s just being underutilized)
* Expertise–the 190 editors have hundreds of years of combined experience, and their relationships with thousands of sources/contacts amounts to an enormous editorial resource.
* Editorial system–all the checks and balances of a publication to assure accuracy, meet deadlines, assure consistency–still value in this even in today’s environment.
I could go on and on but it sounds like I”m defending the status quo–which I’m not. The fact is BW failed to get ahead of the curve and now they’re paying the price. Change is happening, and as Eric said, no one ever promised it would be easy.
Hi Mark — Great piece. As a former newspaper reporter myself (Boston Globe), I totally relate to much of what you discuss here.
It seems to me that the issue isn’t how (or whether) to maintain print publications, but rather how to advance online business models. What’s dead isn’t the reporting or the writing or the drive to do it well, and more deeply. What’s withering is the print platform, which just doesn’t make sense any more. It seems to me that the biggest opportunity here is in rethinking the online presence, and model, and approach.
I’d also challenge your suggestion about “who will do the hard work, the hard reporting” when you say: “Sorry, it won’t be the Huffington Post.” I dunno about that: Why not the Huffington Post? Or the Daily Beast? I’m not suggesting that they could do it with their current staff and setup, but I’d love to see them try.
A more light-hearted look at this issue… from Judith Warner, “Pulp Future”:
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/second-acts/