Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,884
    Blog Entries
    2

    Post Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    Is it the end of an era?

    Some packages like the curvaceous old Coke bottle become so iconic that they are recognizable at 30 paces. So it is with Rolling Stone, whose large format has stood out on magazine racks for more than three decades. It won’t for much longer, however. With the Oct. 30 issue, which will go on sale Oct. 17, Rolling Stone, published by Wenner Media, will adopt the standard size used by all but a few magazines.

    In an interview in his office, Jann Wenner, founder, publisher, editor and general guiding force behind the nation’s biggest music magazine, was characteristically brash about the change. Leaning back in his chair, one leg slung over the side of it, he said, “All you’re getting from that large size is nostalgia.”

    But as he knows well, nostalgia is a powerful marketing force, as is a package that instantly evokes not only the product, but an era. It is tempting to apply that logic to a 41-year-old magazine that seems to put as many pensioners as teenagers on its cover, but Rolling Stone’s readership, bigger than it has ever been, has a surprisingly young median age, in the early 30s, according to market research firms.

    Rolling Stone, published every other week, has paid circulation in the United States of more than 1.4 million, the highest in its history, but its single-copy sales have fallen from 189,000 in 1999, to 132,000 last year. Magazine racks at bookstores, newsstands and checkout counters tend to be made for the standard dimensions, and if Rolling Stone is there, it is often on a high or low shelf, out of eye level, or even on its side or folded over.

    Gary Armstrong, chief marketing officer for Wenner Media, pointed to Vanity Fair, which has lower overall circulation than Rolling Stone, but nearly three times the single-copy sales. With a standard format, he said, it should be possible to raise newsstand sales significantly.

    “The consumer we want to reach watches ‘Lost’ on a big TV screen, on a computer screen and on an iPhone,” he said. “They’re agnostic on format.”...

    The changes fit a magazine that, after taking a much-maligned detour in the 1990s toward more celebrity, pop culture and bite-sized reports, has returned to form in the last few years, winning awards for long articles on topics from Iraq to presidential politics.

    To save money on paper, many newspapers and magazines have taken to printing smaller pages, fewer pages or both. But Rolling Stone says it will spend more and print more, not less: in addition to using more expensive paper and binding, it plans to add 16 to 20 pages per issue....

    “There are disadvantages to being an odd size in handling, moving it through distribution centers, in addition to retail display,” said John Harrington, editor of The New Single Copy, a newsletter about magazine marketing. “If you came forward trying to sell a brand new magazine today with that size, you’d have to have a lot of money behind it for it to be accepted.”

    Rolling Stone created a prototype issue at the smaller size in July, sent it to more than 3,000 readers and asked them to take a survey. The company says the reaction was overwhelmingly positive, and it showed the survey results to some of its major advertisers and ad buyers.

    ...“We’ve evolved,” Mr. Wenner said. “But the core tradition, the mission, remains the same.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/bu...nt&oref=slogin

  2. #2

    •   
    • Sponge & A Rusty Spanner
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not quite here.
    Posts
    21,274

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    I just saw "smaller rack" and was so saddened that I stopped reading.
    Fight On! Beat the Bulldogs!

    Tom Chaney Memorial Debate Lounge Quote of the Week:

    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyjeff View Post
    Speaking of "drive-by" my cousin just became the new drummer for -Train-
    This device kills fascists.

  3. #3

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,884
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    I haven't seen a new issue yet.

    But don't a lot of kids tear out the pictures of their favorite rock bands and tape them to their lockers?

  4. #4

    •   
    • NEVER to Old To Fly...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,568
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    Back when RS got started they were a small sized magizine. I have some originals framed on my wall. It wasn't until the 70's they went to the over sized Mags we have seen.

    Why is this in the debate lounge?
    -----------------------------------------------
    DISNEYLAND: Greatest Man-Made Place On Earth

    YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK: Greatest *GOD-Made Place On Earth

  5. #5

    • Christmastime for Rocker
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Heres
    Posts
    6,524
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    Quote Originally Posted by PanTheMan View Post
    Back when RS got started they were a small sized magizine. I have some originals framed on my wall. It wasn't until the 70's they went to the over sized Mags we have seen.

    Why is this in the debate lounge?
    Probably because Rolling Stone magazine has been an outspoken voice on the war against global warming, and when they were using oversized paper, it exposed thier hypocracy, and so they wanted to switch back to smaller size. Just my two cents...

  6. #6

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Paris, France / Los Angeles
    Posts
    38,884
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    I thought it might be one of those "soft" subjects that people could discuss without getting too heated and upset. To balance what else is going on right now in Debateland.

  7. #7

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • It's knittingknurse now.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Posts
    8,618
    Blog Entries
    82

    Re: Rolling Stone: Switching to a Smaller, Rack-Friendly Size

    Didn't TV Guide change their size and it helped them?

Similar Threads

  1. Rolling Stone - Top 100 Singers of all time
    By sir clinksalot in forum Disney and Industry Theatrical, Music and Publishing Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2008, 06:19 AM
  2. Rolling Stone: The Jonas Brothers God! Girls! Guitars!
    By ALIASd in forum MiceAge Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 04:46 AM
  3. Is Universal Studios Hollywood size friendly?
    By entwife in forum Other Destinations
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-25-2007, 10:33 AM
  4. The Last Buccaneer - Rolling Stone 7/06
    By ALIASd in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2006, 07:59 PM
  5. Heath Ledger, Rolling Stone cover boy. Waaah!
    By ALIASd in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2006, 04:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •