
Steve's
breakdown: We could not believe our eyes but the new
AdWeek has moved away from covering New Business News to
concentrate on "people who buy media space and people who are
trying to sell media space." Their tag line is "The Voice of
Media."
It might
be a good move for them but not good news for the New Business
community. Who's their voice? Who's got their
back?
The
obvious answer: The Ratti Report. We only cover New Business News
and are 100% committed to the people in our
community.
Above
you can see the inaugural AdWeek issue complete with typo
and below is an interview with AdWeek's editor by New
York Magazine. See for yourself.
NEW YORK, NY: This morning, the inaugural
edition of the new Adweek — which emerged
partially from the ashes of the recently
shuttered Brandweek and Mediaweek —
hit desks all over the city. It is heavier, glossier, more
colorful, and packed with ads. Michael Wolff, the trade's editor
and the architect of the change, spoke with us about the
changes.
My first thought when I was
looking at it is, who is your audience for this new print
edition?
It continues to be its core audience, and its core audience is
essentially buyers and sellers. So, people who buy media space and
people who are trying to sell media space. It's really expanding
the idea of who should be concerned with selling
media and buying media. So that's the technology community,
obviously. In a sense that's the big play — those are the people
that I want.
I assume with the new website,
that's the same goal?
The website becomes even a more broad play. There are really three
categories: It's the professional audience, it's the chattering
class audience ... anybody with an obsessive interest in media,
that's in itself a fairly large audience.
Do you think so? The audience
obsessively interested in media is big?
I think it's big. I don't think it's a massive market audience. But
I think there are lots of people who see media the way a lot of
people see politics. There's a crossover even in those two areas.
Everybody wants to know a backstory — and the media is the
backstory. And then the third category is the search engine
audience.
Talk to me about the inception
of the idea for this kind of revamp. How much of it came from
[Prometheus Global Media boss] Richard Beckman, how much of it was
you?
Clearly, Richard called me up and wanted something new, for a lot
of reasons. The trade-magazine model doesn't really work anymore.
While Adweek still continues to be remarkably
profitable, it is less profitable now than it was five years ago,
and five years before that. So the question was: How do you take a
trade magazine and how do you position it for growth? My answer was
Politico. I thought that was especially congenial
to Adweek because, number one, there was already a
magazine in place that worked. If you took the magazine and made it
more attractive, appealing, better reporting, then you would
solidify that base, and then have the opportunity to build out the
digital side.
It's funny you say attractive:
It was not lost on me that you put a bra on the cover of your first
new issue.
And it should not have been lost on you.
Sexy business is a brand
that's been tried before as a brand, not always successfully. Why
do you think it will be a winning strategy this
time?
First thing is, it's already a winning one. We are in the luxurious
position of having a business that is already very profitable. And
now we will give our customers a better product. A better product
costs more money. So will you be able to amortize that cost over
with some growth? But we think it's a pretty conservative move. In
other words, good business, offer a better product, which will then
expand the business.
What's going to happen to the
content that was
in Brandweek and Mediaweek?
It's going to merge into this business. Over the last number of
years that content has been more and more the same. These magazines
really had no reason at all to exist separately. Except inertia. It
makes more sense to cover them together than it does
separately.
Talk to me about the design
and the layout. You had Luke Hayman redo it. It's very colorful,
obviously, and has a sort of Guardian-type feel to it.
What did you want it to look like?
I think that's it. I wanted it to be highly readable, compelling,
and fun. I mean this is a business not inconsiderably about design.
So I'm trying to create something in which form has something to do
with content.
In your "Editor's Letter" you
started out by saying, "Welcome to the new Adweek — not your
father’s trade magazine." Is there such a thing as "your children's
trade magazine"? You said just before that the trade-magazine model
doesn't work.
Again, I would go back to Politico. Trade magazines are built on
the notion of exclusive information. It was usually relatively
low-quality information because there was nowhere else you could
get it. Nobody really had to try too hard. There are a zillion
verticals about the media business now. So, how do you stand out?
How do you create an information source which can
compete?
A lot of your "Editor's
Letter" was looking forward, but there were flares of the old
school. You referred to your journalism as Tolstoy-like. And you
closed with going to lunch. Is going to lunch at Michael's still
the model?
Well, I don't go to lunch at Michael's because we don't speak. And
I don't like them and they don't like me. But! One does still have
to have lunch.
Right. But it did seem like a
reference to older days of advertising and
media.
Our cover story is about these new kind of shops that are opening
outside of Manhattan. That's part of one of our significant themes.
At the same time, most of the money is still in Manhattan and most
of the money is still going to lunch somewhere. Ultimately, the
guys in Brooklyn are going to have to go to lunch — the culture is
not overthrown in a day. And aspects of the culture are never
overthrown. Do what you will, you have to eat lunch. It's a curious
thing and curious metaphor — because the people who don't eat lunch
actually are the technology people or they have those crummy little
lunches in their horrifying and hermetic cafeterias. One of the
things I would suggest is that, if they're going to grow their
businesses, if they are going to build advertising
businesses and strong revenue streams, which are dependent on the
marketing industry, then they better get themselves out to
lunch.
I enjoyed the column about
Arianna — although taking on Arianna in your first issue
...
I would say we didn't take her on. I would say it was a celebration
of Arianna.
She is described as a
courtesan a couple of times.
That's not necessarily bad, especially if you're a successful
courtesan.
The book is pretty heavy with
ads. What is the change in terms of ad sales for you guys? Do you
have more ads in the book because of this?
Oh, definitely.
Can you
compare?
I can't. I can tell you this is the
biggest Adweek that has ever
published.
When I originally heard about
this, I heard, "Oh, they're doing an Hollywood
Reporter-type change." What do you think of that
comparison?
I don't think it's true. What we are is what I've been calling a
business vertical. We're not a consumer book, we're a business
publication. You sort of can say that the problem with trade
publishing is that it was too niche and the problem with business
journalism is that it's too broad. If you're in the media business
you don't necessarily want to read about the oil business. So what
we've tried to do is to create a business vertical. Our stuff ought
to be as smart as the smartest business publications, but it's
about the media business.
Source: http://nymag.com