"Interactive magazines are designed to compete for the attention of online readers, not print readers."
    
With all of the focus on iPad and eReaders lately, I was interested in a study on "interactive digital magazines" that recently came out in the U.S.  While most "digital magazines" are simply replicas of print magazines, "...interactive digital magazines are an entirely different species," according to Josh Gordon, author of "The Case for Advertising in Interactive Digital Magazines."  Really? 

OK, let's beat this tired horse one more time in light of the plethora of eReaders hitting the market. Maybe magazines have one more chance to make this model work.

The platforms for "digital interactive magazines" include internet, mobile, private networks and "other personal screens." The study looked at eight magazine publishers who are successfully selling advertising in these interactive editions, and is the first study to compare reader use of interactive digital magazines to other online media.  

In addition to competing for the attention of online readers, the other main features that separate interactive digital mags from "digital replicas of print magazines" are that they're designed for easy interaction between readers and the magazine, beyond one-way content delivery; and they contain ads that readers can interact with.

I looked at some of the examples included in the study and felt like I was in that TV series where the 2010 guy wakes up in 1976 and has to pretend he doesn't know any more than they do about how things turn out.  "Every article in Grand magazine is embedded with social media sharing tools for Facebook, Twitter, Digg and more."  Another lets readers "post on the publications daily blog."  Is that new?

Aren't the features which separate interactive digital mags from print versions the same features that separate web versions from the print magazine?  Haven't we been telling magazine publishers for years that the "digital interactive" versions need to take advantage of the unique capabilities of the interactive medium?  Why are we still so stuck in the old familiar models? Do we really need to "flip through" a digital magazine by pretending to turn its pages with our mouse?! 

I applaud Josh Gordon for conducting this study on magazines that are successfully selling advertising in this space, but I always go back to thinking that we're far from cracking what a "digital" magazine, newspaper, or advertising should look like. But it's still early days.  What were the first TV commercials but an announcer standing in front of a camera reading a radio ad?  As fast as technology is changing, I'm afraid that's where we still are - but it will be an exciting space to watch.

Go Back