Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
Ask HN: Why are books still alive, but magazines are dying?
12 points by instagraham on Oct 12, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 13 comments
I have always loved magazines. But, as with many others of my generation and older, I lost the habit once phones became ubiquitous.

On a Gary Vee podcast, he made a point about how a lot of people who enjoy magazines today remember the experience they had 10-15 years ago. This is an experience absent for many in Gen Z.

The inevitable conclusion for magazines is that they will perish, though of course, never completely. I know that it is a tired argument, like those who say print is dead, but the numbers seem to add up for magazines. If you discount digital readership, the habit of reading a magazine has visibly faded.

Perhaps the numbers may not agree. Circulation numbers appear to be going up in some countries. But having worked in the space, I think there's a big element of fakery or irrelevance in such numbers - old readers who renew subscriptions, or bulk orders from institutions that will simply leave them lying around. There is a clear failure to find new readers, to build a magazine reading habit in people who never had one. The exceptions may be only for the well-known premium mags, like The Economist or maybe Foreign Affairs.

Magazine-reading may be dead, but the habit of reading books, it not. I think there's still a thriving community of book readers, enough so that the typical best books list on Amazon will have thousands of reviews.

Magazines, notably a more transient and temporary form of writing, will seldom get more than 20 reviews on Amazon. Magazines, unless digitally available, appear to lack the community they had before. They are simply not talked about anymore.

This is not to say that magazines suck (I love niche-based compilations of reportage) or that they are uniquely enjoyable. It's just that they don't seem to fit in the modern life cycle. Boredom, before, was addressed by picking up whatever you had yet to read in your house. With a smartphone, it's always the second or third option.

With books, people seem to make a more conscious effort to take out time to read, even turning off their phones to do so. With magazines, I see little evidence of similar drive.

Why are magazines dying or dead, while books are alive and aliver?



There's probably heaps of reasons, but I'll point out this one: Latency.

Online 'magazines' -- professional "blogs" with magazine style articles -- can publish an article whenever its done (or even before its done, you can always edit it later). An issue of a magazine comes out every month/quarter etc. and needs content, editing, (usually) advertising placement, layout, printing, distribution etc. to all be done up front and with better/more quality control.

This is really a reason why magazines "lost" to the web, but my point is that books didn't. Books can also survive digitally as ebooks, but an emagazine is (would be) just a less convenient website.

A couple of other thoughts (not reasons or considered arguments):

I feel like buying a magazine is an indulgence. It costs money and has the weight of the resources used to produce it. This means that a magazine feels like an object that should be worth something, which raises the standard for the content. When I did read magazines regularly, I couldn't bring myself to throw them away. A physical book is easier to see as a valuable object in the long term -- keeping them around doesn't (immediately) make you look like a hoarder and they're easier to give away or sell to other people.


I'm but one data point. I used to buy a lot of magazines, Popular Science, Byte, APC, MacWorld, Motoring, Unique Homes, Architectural Digest, etc. As the internet took hold, the prices of magazines continued to rise and so did the volume of ads. My magazine buying diminished as my news needs became better served by the internet. In the early days internet ads weren't too bothersome and I was pleased with how much money I saved by no longer buying magazines. At every house move, I ended up throwing thousands of dollars worth of magazines away. That hurt.

I no longer buy technical books of any sort. As for other books, eBooks are cheaper and take up less bookshelf space. Notwithstanding, I still have well over 2000 quality books, and that's after culling out of date technical books.


Circa 1980 there were a lot of magazines like Byte and Creative Computing that tried to cover the whole world of "8-bit" computing. My impression was that they all started to struggle when the IBM PC came out in 1981 but it took a long time for the situation to develop because the PC was strong in some ways (640k seemed like a huge amount of memory at first, the CPU was fast because it wasn't having half of its cycles stolen by the video system) but weak in other ways (horrible for motion graphics because it wasn't having half of its cycles stolen by the video system.) There were some magazines like Atari Age and Compute Gazette and Rainbow that specialized in particular systems that became more important by the middle of the 1980s.

If you look at Byte in 1987 you can see the industry in the middle of a transition to PC clones, which for me was sparked by the relatively cheap PC AT clones, I got one for about $1200. With a 12MHz 286 this machine was fast enough that I could develop software under emulation for the Z80 with CP/M and have it run faster than most real CP/M machines. EGA graphics was actually good enough for games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_Keen

1987 was the year I traded in my Coco 3 and a huge amount of peripherals (I ran the OS-9 multitasking operating system and had two terminals attached) and many of my friends were doing the same.

The generalist magazines were mostly dead, the specialist magazines were on the way out as their platforms died, Computer Shopper was the top magazine for a while not because of the articles but because it was chock full of ads for parts for building PC clones. Around that time I'd gotten a 2400 baud modem and I was dialing into BBS all the time and that was already a nail in the coffin for computer magazines because the early adopters were already reading about computers online. Byte, for instance, jumped in with both feet with an online service called Bix.

I had quit reading computer magazines long before the WWW came out but soon it wasn't just the early adopters who had quit, it was everyone.


I bought a variety of magazines in the 1980s (Modern Photography, Scientific American, etc.) and I felt you really got your money's worth in content. Before the end of the 1990s, magazines had become much thinner and content was lame and outweighed by ads. I don't think I bought any magazines after about 1998. Was the Internet wholly to blame for the change?


> I'm but one data point. I used to buy a lot of magazines, Popular Science, Byte, APC, MacWorld, Motoring, Unique Homes, Architectural Digest,

To speculate a bit, notwithstanding your need for information, were you not also buying a lifestyle with those magazines? and the switch to online - does it make you feel as inherently a part of that lifestyle as you did when you had a magazine for it?

It reminds me of a Calvin & Hobbes running gag, where Calvin subscribes to a magazine for chewing gum enthusiasts. It seemed farcical, and maybe that was the point, but in hindsight, it's nice to have community and some sense of niche knowledge.


I think books and magazines serve different demands. Books are infinitely re-readable and the reader has to really engage the content to enjoy it. Physical paper helps with that engagement.

Magazines are mostly short form, cheap content (excluding periodical literary magazines, indie 'zines, etc.) that are usually meant to share the latest news on some subject. Paper is an unnecessary medium with magazines, whose point is to convey contemporary information very quickly, so that people can gossip about it later and then forget about it when the next issue comes out.

In short: It's very difficult to replicate the experience of a book using technology (somehow books have survived the rise of e-readers), but social media optimized magazines down to their most fundamental elements


> Magazines are mostly short form, cheap content (excluding periodical literary magazines, indie 'zines, etc.)

I'd disagree on this. If you compare magazine news reporting with newspaper reporting, the magazine is usually deeper, more capable of investigation and fact-checking. Ofc, this can be contested magazine to magazine but it's a general trend that magazine stories take more time to write (1-2 weeks to several months) than a newspaper story (1 day to 1 week max).

But the main reason I disagree is that magazine content is far from what I'd call cheap. Pick up an old magazine, like LIFE or even TIME or PCGamer from a decade or three ago, and it's like a page out of the past. It captures reality in a way books cannot, because of the ads, photos, reader letters and so on.

I love old magazines and they're some of the most priceless things I carry from my past. This includes a stack of Nat Geo from the 90s. Heavy as hell, but survived multiple house moves. That's a moment of nature, several hundred per issue, from a period long gone. How much of those moments are impossible to snap today, one could ask.

> In short: It's very difficult to replicate the experience of a book using technology (somehow books have survived the rise of e-readers), but social media optimized magazines down to their most fundamental elements

Totally agreed. Though I think what made a magazine special doesn't necessarily translate when you turn it into just another piece of content on the internet. A NewYorkPost and an Atlantic article occupy probably the same amount of space and attention time of a typical reader, though both have vastly different qualities of information


We subscribe to The Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek, the one online subscription I have is to The Guardian and paradoxically that's because The Guardian is free so I can share links to The Guardian. We also receive the weekly trade publication Country Folks which is printed on newsprint and covers agriculture in New York.

One thing about magazines is that they do build up a large mass of paper over time. We are not quick about throwing them away, we probably collect a cubic foot of them before throwing them out.


Those subscriptions in particular - do you ever turn back to them years later and see if they were prescient?

I find much joy in reading old magazines.


There certainly are things that make you say "the more things change the more they change the same". The Economist rolls out the same article every 8 months or so that says something to the effect that occupational licensing rules are too strict in the US and each time they act like it is something really fresh.


might depend on the books and the magazine. The Atlantic, New Yorker and McSweeny's all seem to be doing okay. Byte, Kilobaud Microcomputing and Starlog all went the way of the dodo. Some authors are surprisingly thin on the ground (Burroughs) while some are still easy to find (McCarthy).

I think it depends on what you're looking for. Just was thinking I still have Wired and Fantasy and Science Fiction subscriptions. The latter has, apparently, had some financial scares in the past, but is still here. I was going to say thr Magazines that survive provide "evergreen" content, but Wired has found its niche for largely ephemeral articles. Same with Rolling Stone.

I think I have a problem with your premise. I don't think magazines are collapsing in general, yet many have. Many of the collapsed magazines I'm thinking of made the leap to a web page where costs were lower. Some even survived (Boing Boing comes to mind.) But they're not all gone.


I think there should be considered a distinction between a magazine's content (produced over a week or a month, with time to pause and consider the news cycle) and everyday journalism content (a newspaper or new site perpetually striving to put things out now). Magazines, at least the right ones, had a quality edge over their more rushed peers.

But when you turn magazine content online, you lose a lot of that edge. One because a lot of magazines digitised very poorly, and ceded informational space to far more digitally native players (Vice, buzzfeed, clickbait news sites). Two because a magazine story may look the same as a quick 800-word content sludge I could churn out in an hour.

Is there a way for magazine experience to be made more premium in a digital space?


Magazines are kind of adware-shaped and that makes them competing with Instagram in 202x. IMO magazines as a genre moves to B2B areas, like what am I able to order from some supplier this year. I have read a random 15 years old Cosmopolitan magazine which happened to appear on my desk today and I have realized that material is somewhat teenager-shaped with a gorgeous illustrations, great writing style but poor fact-checking (decline of global heating in my case) and actually there is no reason to consume this kind of content on a fallen trees medium while any teenager has a keyboard-less device with a beautiful screen which is too good setup to consume exactly this kind of information and too bad one for doing anything else.

What about books, they might were looking as a half-dead genre in 2009 but there is a lot of enshittification of the Internets happened since there. Seems like a good old ad-free privacy-respecting not-subscription-begging with not-obsoleteable-codec totally-readable-after-100-years paper textbook is a king. Of course you gonna turn off your spam notifications to make yourself able to consume something which is expressed on 100+ pages.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: