The real tragedy of EGM's closure
The personal tragedy of Electronic Gaming Monthly closing after UGO bought its website 1UP and Ziff Davis disposed of the remains is obvious, given the 30 people laid off. The editorial tragedy is clear to anyone who reads videogame magazines, since EGM was the only one -- well, the only one published in the U.S., anyway -- that remotely resembled a real magazine -- you know, one with really interesting features thought up by smart editors and writers -- as opposed to just a vehicle for game companies to promote their wares.
But the business tragedy is that publications like EGM have been so tremendously unable to expand their advertiser base beyond videogame publishers. That, in a nutshell, is what killed the publication. This is what Sam Kennedy, editorial director for 1UP (which EGM was a part of) said to MTV Multiplayer :
The obvious retort is: Why did you need the games industry so badly? I work for a publication that relies heavily on advertisements from the businesses we cover -- studios, networks, agencies, and those who work with them -- although perusing the paper and website I can see we have expanded a bit to include fashion, alcohol, automobiles, etc. But to me that makes a bit more sense since our print readership is way more attractive to companies that are in, or work with, the entertainment industry, and thus they're willing to pay a premium (our website draws a much broader array of readers).
But that shouldn't have been a problem for EGM. Their core readership is teenage boys and young men. 18-35 year-old men are the #1 most desirable demographic for advertisers, as they're so hard to reach since they're often doing things like, well, playing videogames. EGM had that audience. GameInformer and GameSpot and Kotaku and others have it. Yet I rarely see ads beyond game companies and, occassionally, military recruiters. A few times I remember seeing car companies and a TV show or two, but that's about it.
Of course it's easy for me to sit here and say what the ad sales people shoulda/woulda/coulda done, but to me, the fact that they were unable to crack that nut is teh true tragedy, because it could have turned publications like EGM, and thus quality videogame journalism as a whole, into a much more viable business.
Chris Morris reports on the business and culture of video games and offers analysis of recent events and industry trends.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Amazing article. Can't believe I never noticed the lack of non-gamecentric advertising.
Posted by: Chris | January 14, 2009 at 01:28 PM
I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head for niche magazine publishing companies everywhere - while the industry that the magazine covers wants PR within it, for the most part its not willing to support the publication with advertising. From music to comics to snowboarding to videogames, the discussion is the same for the ad sales team - how do we reach outside our endemic ad core because they are just not supporting us.
And you'd think that the videogame player: young, male with disposable income would be a great prospect in the ad world, but the truth is, to the print media planner, despite all the protestations that this audience is so hard to reach, they're not. Because the only truth I can take away from EGM or the countless hordes of other niche publications that have folded due to lack of endemic support is that the magazine journalism/sales paradigm is fundamentally broken.
In the crush to have the best content possible, power shifted from the editors to the PR people pitching them. Once that happened, the companies didn't need to advertise anymore, as they got their coverage for free. The old adage used to be that if you want a publication to talk about your product, you send it to them, but if you want them to talk about it the way you want it to be presented, you buy an ad and control the message yourself.
That just isn't true in today's world; you only have to read a little on some of the controversies that have hit the videogame business over the past, from manufactured reviews to pay-from play allegations, magazine readers everywhere don’t really trust what they read anymore. Editors hide under the shield of journalistic integrity, magazine sales people go the opposite way and whore whatever they can get their hands on, publishers continue to rely on the root of this broken model – we’ll give copies in order to guarantee an audience, and ultimately, no one wins.
The solution - an ad free, subscription based model, where the temptation to pander, or from the other side, to sell out, is removed. But are there enough fans in any niche to truly fund such an endeavor in today’s world of (mostly) free written content. I don’t see it, but I hope I’m wrong.
Posted by: Rob | January 13, 2009 at 08:21 AM