Traditional Print vs Online/Video in the world of audio

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,493
Location
Sarasota, FL
It seems to me that there is a quiet, ongoing battle for eyes and advertising dollars between traditional print media like Stereophile, TAS, etc. and online publications/video like Tone, Soundstage Ultra, Enjoy the Music, Mono & Stereo, etc. There is a real growth of online reviews/video vs print media.

The benefit to online is the ability to review a product and get it posted in days rather than months. The print media advantage is the fact that some people still prefer to read a hard magazine. The print media has deep roots with top notch writers. But the new kids on the online block are making noise.

Online forums like Audioshark are also part of that online/video future. Hearing from real owners of equipment, learning from each other, interacting with one another, etc. is invaluable. Birds of a feather. There is nothing more exhilarating than sharing the passion for a special hobby like high end audio with other like minded individuals.

Although Audioshark has ads (run & managed by Google Adsense), the pittance paid each month doesn't cover 1/10 of the operating costs. Generous donations from members and funding from yours truly have covered the balance from day one. For those who remember the early days of AS, I tried ads from a few manufacturers, but the minute someone posted "I tried their amp and didn't like it", my phone would ring with demands to "delete that post". That's when I decided to make the move to Google Adsense. It meant less money, but it was worth it. Ads for dishwashers and IBM laptops are safe. :)

But digress.

What do you think about the future of print media vs online? Can both survive? I for one, sure hope so. I love both.
 
A couple thoughts, online/digital is a more green option. Those who receive print, will they archive them or eventually toss them anyway. If archiving, there's the whole storage issue. Digital is easier to transport with you. Print media offers some nice glossy photos.

Print media writers in my mind are more established reviewers, ie. Robert Harley, Michael Fremer. Although some like Fremer and Gutenberg do online writing as well. I suppose if an online writer did it long enough they could also become established. But many online reviews are done by those I don't feel have the experience or background for writing reviews. In this I'm merely speaking of online/print magazines. I don't feel the reviews written on forums etc. by.... let's say, non-pro reviewers pose any threat to print. I see them as additional feedback to be added to your opinion,or not.

From what I understand prin media in general is in decline. I think many do offer a digital subscription option.

I wonder if the fact most reviews can be read online anyway hurt both pay options, who wants to pay for something when you can get it free.
 
I much prefer print , for one thing you can browse a mag anywhere without computer access and you often read stuff you might never have seen . then there is those pages of lovely ads for kit you might not have seen online
 
For me it depends on where I'm at. Flying on a plane and if I have access to the net, I access a few online mags, if I'm just lounging around at home, paper, if I'm on the throne, well it just wouldn't be right to be looking at my IPAD :D
 
I enjoy both. I prefer print whether for books, newspapers, or magazines, but also use online for all three. However, I do see the writing on the wall, and realize print will be gone for most things in the relatively near future.
 
I have been online for the most part in recent years.

Another aspect of the new digital media is how easy it is to stay current. For products that we sell in my day job we spend thousands of dollars printing product catalogs and brochures that are redundant almost the minute they are printed or when some update is made to a product line. Not to mention the various typos we catch after we have completed a full print run. So much so that we just tell our customers to refer to the website for the most up to date product information. I completely agree about digital being a more green option.

The big drawback of online digital is securing financial stability. Our culture now expects/demands for stuff to be free whereas the old print model is based on a revenue model that - when it works - provides financial compensation. This is often overlooked. But unless there is a compensation involved there is always going to be challenges with attracting quality content.
 
I think all have their place, but I would position them differently.

Print is established with a proven business model, as long as people continue to buy. That typically implies a certain quality you can expect when you pay for something. However, I do read most of the traditional media in electronic format.

Digital formats have a lower entry barrier for writers, as basically anyone can set up their own site pretty easily. As a result the quality varies more. Even to the extent of this one chap buying several year old model Q5s this year and then attempting to publish ramblings about his personal purchase as a 'review'. But there are good ones too.

Online fora I find are a user platform for exchange of thoughts. As they are not relying on publishing cycles they tend to be faster and more up-to-date.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top