Why Digital Magazines Don’t Have to Suck

“Digital magazines suck,” proclaimed a media executive friend of mine recently. “They’re not print, and they’re not Web. It seems like a lazy way to get online instead of investing in a really good Web site.” Perhaps he has a point. We’ve all seen those PDF/Flash/whatever-based replicas of print. Many are clunky to use, slow to load and have type so small that you’re constantly zooming in and out. No wonder some publishers haven’t seen their efforts pay off.

I call them digital replicas, not digital magazines. Publishers often default to recreations of the print product since it’s easy and relatively cheap. If implemented well, replicas can help publishers reduce fulfillment costs and expand internationally.

But digital replicas have major shortcomings that limit their effectiveness and business potential. It’s not a problem with the technology, mind you; it’s what we as publishers are and are not doing with the technology. You see these digital replicas everywhere. Another colleague of mine compared them to the early days of television where people simply put a camera in a radio studio and called it TV. That didn’t last long, and eventually TV came into its own with content that took advantage of the medium.

Likewise, digital magazines are starting to come into their own in the form of stand-alone digital magazines. Organic Style, Viv and Military Electronics are examples of this new breed of digital magazines and, incidentally, all use different technologies. What makes them different from digital replicas? First, they are formatted to easily be read on a computer screen. They each make excellent use of interactivity within the content—video clips, animation, etc.—and they offer advertisers interactivity. They make the magazines immerse, rich experiences.

Not many publishers produce these stand-alone digital magazines because they require more effort and, yes, a bit more cost to produce. And while we may get some business benefit out of digital replicas for a while, ultimately, we need to come to terms with the fact that online is not print.

So why not just have a really good Web site? Web sites can be updated continually, infinitely expandable, and offer vast amounts of content and opportunities to explore. But readers don’t always want infinite and constantly changing, and they don’t always have the time or desire to explore. There is something comforting about a print publication that has a defined start and end, and a sense of accomplishment and finality that comes with completing an issue. There is still a place for editors to sift through vast amounts of content to tell a reader what is really important.

Here, then, is the sweet spot for digital magazines. They can provide that sense of a defined start/end and accomplishment where readers feel that the editors have helped focus their time, presented the best content and filtered out the junk. But unlike print, digital magazines also can provide a rich, immerse environment with video, animation and interactive features that provide much more depth. Rather than being the worst of both worlds—neither a good Web site, nor a good print publication—digital magazines can be the best of both worlds. They can be fantastic publications that provide a defined, engaging experience for readers, a rich environment for advertisers to engage their customers, and a profitable business model for publishers.