Comments on: 5 Things Books Should Learn From Magazines

By: Editorial and Marketing 2.0: Thinking Digitally | Digital Book World

Editorial and Marketing 2.0: Thinking Digitally | Digital Book World — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:57:49 +0000

[...] December, I wrote a post entitled “5 Things Books Should Learn From Magazines“, making the argument that, as book publishers attempt to engage their readers directly, they [...]

By: Holiday Reads | Ditchwalk

Holiday Reads | Ditchwalk — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:54:19 +0000

[...] 5 Things Books Should Learn From Magazines Guy Gonzalez delivers not only a good comparison, but a good template for anyone thinking about starting a magazine or magazine-like web site. (I dream about both.) Also, don’t miss this, or this. [...]

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:23:17 +0000

The most common answers I've heard is that book editors are too behind the scenes to be influential, and that corporate policies limit their direct engagement with readers. The first, of course, is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy (obscurity is a choice, IMO); the second is more realistic, but also assumes an editor's platform should be about the publisher and not the person, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:50:55 +0000

Was that a nod to Debbie Stier? #crushit!

As for Anderson, sorry, but I do not suffer fools or hypocrites gladly. Take your pick on where to classify him.

By: Mark Barrett

Mark Barrett — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:35:01 +0000

So okay: you crushed this post.

I'm on my second reading and I'm still connecting circuits. An excellent comparison, but also a great blueprint for starting a mag-based mag or web-based mag. (Both of which I'd like to do.)

One suggestion, however:

"I can’t stand Chris Anderson...."

Try not to be so subtle.

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:59:33 +0000

“Art, not media” is the perfect mantra because it implies the message is the focus not the medium. The eyeballs for advertisers approach of most magazines leaves them vulnerable to the fickle tastes of advertisers and their unimaginative, CPM-driven agencies.

Since posting this, I've discovered Monocle magazine and have added it to my short list of “Print Done Right!” A beautiful example of what print can do best.

By: Debbie Stier

Debbie Stier — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:38:44 +0000

Great post. I'm not sure what I have to say is exactly related, but coincidentally, (or maybe not), I found myself thinking about magazines today too. I had sent home to myself a two foot stack of magazines that had been collecting in my inbox at work for months. I couldn't bare to throw them out, and yet, I didn't have time to read them during my every day life.

HOWEVER, (I swear to you, I almost tweeted this out out today except that I didn't want to leave my heavenly zone) when I sat down on my couch with a cup of tea and my stack of magazines, I thought to myself, I'm in heaven. It was peaceful and relaxing in a way that the internet isn't (for me).

The other thing I want to say about magazines has to do with Vogue. Did you see September Issue? I loved that movie because it made me realize that Vogue is art more than it is "media," and I think it has more of a chance of surviving this digital revolution than other magazines such as PW or the NYTBR. I thought the same thing when I got to my copy of The Believer today. Art, not media.

By: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez

Guy LeCharles Gonzalez — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:38:43 +0000

A worthwhile experiment indeed, and best of all, it's easy to get started, as I see you have. Just left a comment there, too.

By: If I had a platform… « Stacy Boyd's Blog

If I had a platform… « Stacy Boyd's Blog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:02:03 +0000

[...] recent post by Guy LeCharles got me thinking about the question. In “5 Things Books Should Learn from Magazines,” he says: …Good magazines have strong personalities, both figuratively, via their [...]

By: Stacy Boyd

Stacy Boyd — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:48:24 +0000

I agree, Marian. The point about book editors having a platform is a good one, though it may be difficult to implement.

Book editors have traditionally been "invisible" to the reader. Unlike magazine editors, who have the freedom to rewrite and sculpt content to fit the voice of the publication, book editors are supposed to let the author's voice shine (even if the editor had a heavy hand in revising the book.)

Also, the books and/or authors in an editor's list may have different styles and stories. This means a book editor's curated collection of works may be very eclectic, if the publishing company allows the editor to acquire for multiple purposes (e.g., non-fiction, women's fiction, romance, etc.) Finding a common thread on which to base a platform--besides the simple fact of an editor's personal taste--may be difficult.

That said, I think Guy is right. This is a worthwhile experiment to take on, and the way to begin would be to interact with readers.