Comments on: Death Of Print: Forbes.com exacts revenge of nerds on Forbes

By: Chris Skinner

Chris Skinner — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:13:56 +0000

We’re struggling with the same issues among our publications. I fully agree with Mr. Slater’s point that a new generation is coming along (who will wonder what all the fuss was about) but in the meantime we still have two camps who are more likely to claim loyalty to the medium first, and the content second. And the fault isn’t always with the “print-types” – there is also an unfortunate “we’re the future” attitude coming from the “web types” (of which I count myself).

What’s the secret to the day-to-day managing of staff from both sides to the point of cooperation? Or does it need to be accepted that a brand can only be perceived as one medium and any other channels considered complementary?

One can argue that the ESPN brand still evokes the image of cable channel first with .com and print coming after despite ESPN.com ranking in the top 50 visited US sites. Like Forbes, CondeNast/CondeNet tried the full separation only to put the magazine sites back in the print titles and focus solely on the web-only products.

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:22:35 +0000

NUTTY, couldn’t agree more.

Ditto that on location, colocation, etc. I guess if the patient is unresponsive you get out the paddles, but every volt spent on electroshock could have been spent instead on making a great site and great content. And I think there are some (few, I hope) people who don’t have much in their management toolkit except the paddles.

By: Forbes.com, Forbes careerists gird for battle [Death Of Print] : VCsAndAngels - Venture Capital / VCs, Angel Investors, Startup News, Etc

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:07:36 +0000

[...] result could be nuclear, as editors and writers scramble for position in the new order. Churbuck observes that the split between print and online had its roots in a plan to spin off Forbes.com in an IPO [...]

By: Om

Om — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:53:14 +0000

David

This is the best analysis of the Titanic — sorry Forbes Inc — I have read. Good to be an insider. Lovely!

By: David Churbuck

David Churbuck — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:00:41 +0000

Blanket statements are smothering, so I’ll retract in deference to Mister Slater, who indeed works at an org that has solved a lot of the dichotomy bullshit. But …. the most tiresome discussion topic I can think of is print-online relations. It’s just tedious and the fact that there is a dichotomy, the fact that I constantly get asked to help with a print to online migration model, and the fact that there are people who will resist that integration, or ask for caution is NUTTY.

Look, Forbes is ahead of the game when it comes to developing and nurturing a digital strategy. But …. the location, colocation, who prints first, etc. etc. etc.

It’s natural and normal, but it is not a distraction for the upstarts that are bleeding off the audience.

Publishing is a very interesting place to be this day.

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:36:50 +0000

Don’t know jack about Forbes, but can’t agree w/ the blanket ‘print & web can’t get along’. I run both, have different target audiences in mind (or at any rate, print goes after the smallest inner ring and web after the broadest outer ring of the tree), and make it all work. And yes there are competing priorities, and yes it makes me bonkers sometimes. But that is the nature of work generally.

I think the process of splitting or remashing will always generate a ton of friction and residual heat, but I also think a generation of editors/journalists/writers/whatever will slowly bubble up who have no fundamental problem with the duality.

Of course I have been wrong on occasion.