BoSacks Speaks Out: On the Survival Rates Of Magazine Launches 2006-2016

Those who know me, my friends and family, will all tell you I'm an optimist. My wife Carol says that I don't see the cup half full, but rather I see it continuously spilling over. My perspective on me is that I look for the positive in all things. Sometimes it's there and sometimes it's not, but I prefer to look for the good rather than the negative. It's just what I do, and I have always been this way.

Which brings me to Professor Samir Husni's post titled "Mr. Magazine's Study Shows An Increase In Survival Rates Of Magazine Launches 2006 - 2015." Try as I might I can't find solace in his joyous observation that "almost two out of every ten new magazines launched ten years ago are still in business today." As a devoted optimist I can't seem to feel comfortable with an over 80 percent loss rate.

The Professor says the survival rate of new titles is on the increase. I guess that is good, but the increase of survival has apparently risen to a lofty 17% after ten years in business or an 83 percent loss rate.

These are not numbers I am comfortable with broadcasting as the proof of the sustainability of the print universe. Which brings me to something which does make me feel grounded and offers to me comfort that print does have future.

It starts with my belief that aggregates and statistical data don't give an accurate picture on an individual basis. Aggregates are averages, and average numbers can suggest mediocrity of a whole group or industry, but are not true for those above the median line.  Aggregate data takes supreme success and dumbs it down to commonality. It also assumes those under the center line are vast underperformers. Yet each business has its own criteria for success. Some publishers close down a circulation in the millions or nearly so, which they deem to be unsuccessful. For them perhaps the magazine is. For others this circulation is the dream achievement of a lifetime in business.

Business is, at the end of the day, about winners and losers. We keep score with spreadsheets and bottom lines. There have always been death and destruction in the magazine business, but there also have always been winners.  Perhaps that is Samir's point. That in this digital age of communication adjustment, the print community still has some winners, even if it's at the low 17 percent survival level. 

I stand by a previous statement of mine. All you have to do to survive the current non-Armageddon of publishing is to put out the most outstanding products possible for those who are still addicted and still hungry for printed reading products. The bottom line truth is that you have to give the readers what they want, on the substrate that they want, when they want it, and at that precise moment in time. Simple really. Just total excellence in every part of your enterprise executed every day, every month and every year. Is that so hard?

What do you think of the professor's optimistic observation of 2 in 10 surviving? Let's us know and It will be shared with the publishing community.