The New York Times’ David Carr takes a look at Newsweek and offers some tips for the new owners on how to make the magazine relevant.

From the New York Times

Sometime this summer, someone other than The Washington Post will probably own the renowned brand of Newsweek. When I wrote about the pending sale in this column last week, I waxed philosophical about the meaning of a newsweekly magazine in 2010 and prattled on about how ill-conceived Newsweek’s latest redesign was.

Needless to say, that criticism went over well inside the magazine itself. “Well, then, what would you do if you ran Newsweek?” asked one person there.

I’m a columnist, I replied. People take a look at what I have to say and generally head in the other direction as fast as they can.

But the question raises an interesting point. It’s easy to throw rocks at a magazine — any magazine — as it tries to contend with overwhelmed readers, digital competition and a fractured culture. (Or as Jon Meacham of Newsweek said of the gulf spill, in his editor’s note, “One of the hardest things in institutional life is to correct course in the middle of things.”) So what would I do?

I gave it some thought and came up with some notions, but that’s just the starting point: we’d like to hear from you about what editorial approach might assure Newsweek’s future.

But first, let me take a crack at it:

1. IT’S A MAGAZINE

Yes, it’s a brand. But mainly, it’s a magazine.

Whatever revenue Newsweek attracts comes overwhelmingly from the printed product. So while many savants have suggested it is as easy as dumping the print brand and its associated costs, the Web footprint of something called “Newsweek” is small and represents a tiny fraction of the revenue. The name may become more meaningful on the Web, but to make Newsweek work, someone has to figure out how to put out a magazine.

2. FIND A RUNWAY

The current leadership decided that Newsweek is no longer in the Time magazine business, meaning that it does not produce a comprehensive, well-turned scrape on the week’s events. But in spite of current efforts, it can’t become The Economist because, well, that spot is already taken. The New Yorker brings to bear overwhelming literary force at a weekly cadence, while The Week has speed-reading annotation covered.

To stick out, Newsweek needs less top-spin on current events and far more curve balls with fewer steps back and more looks forward. Easy to say and tough to do, but the Voice of God the magazine relies on has to be augmented with Vox Populi, a generation of writers and thinkers who aren’t on the Rolodex of every cable news producer in town.

3. TURN OFF THE TV

Speaking of which, Newsweek editors and writers are on television more than some people who actually work on TV. It isn’t helping the magazine. If chattering cable television appearances drove magazine sales, Newsweek would be ubiquitous.

It may be good for the writers’ brands, but it’s not good for readers. This week, Fareed Zakaria, in an otherwise considered essay on the costs of a foreign policy based on belligerence, opened the piece by saying, “They say a picture is worth a thousand words.”

I think “they” also say that if you want people to read what you write, you should summon a compelling opening. If the editors and writers are not giving the magazine their fullest attention, why should the reader?

Carr offers several more tips and you can go to the article to read the rest of them, but I wonder in this digital age why bother with a printed magazine?  In my opinion the only value Newsweek has is its name and even though Carr thinks its a magazine and not a brand the real value is in the brand not the magazine.

The new owners could turn Newsweek into a digital property and potentially make some money rather than run the risk of losing millions more on a printed product few people care about.

As they say Adapt or Die and this should be the mantra of the new ownership.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

6 Comments for What’s Wrong With Newsweek?