I Won't Say Utne Reader Takes My Advice, but ...

Folio: reports that Utne Reader, the lefty journal of "independent media," is increasing its cover and subscription prices, and it is also increasing the physical trim size of the magazine to 8.5" x 10". Paper quality will also improve.

I've been arguing that magazines should be doing just that -- increasing their prices to pay for a bigger, better product, instead of following the lemmings who shrink trim size (I'm talking to you, Rolling Stone and German edition of Playboy) and cut, cut, cut content and quality.

Good Housekeeping is going the other way -- let's just call it the John Zipperer Way, not because I have an ego but simply because there is no other appropriate description for it. Utne Reader has also jumped on the John Zipperer Way bandwagon (that's awkward; will have to come up with new nomenclature). I hope others take notice.

New York Times vs. Good Housekeeping

It's thunderdome: Two magazines enter, only one exits!

I reported (well, re-reported; someone else did the actual reporting, but that's the blog world, eh?) recently that Good Housekeeping was going to actually increase the dimensions of its print magazine -- expanding in size and making itself more visible. As I wrote then, I think that's exactly the right thing to do. I'm tired of (and depressed by) all the magazines that react to bad times by becoming thinner and smaller and giving the reader less reason to pick them up, so I was pleased to see an established magazine do something dramatic.

Now, Editor & Publisher reports that the The New York Times Magazine is shrinking in size. The magazine's new dimensions will be 9 percent smaller than the current edition. It's a cost-saving measure, according to the managing editor.

Sigh.

When Times Are Tough, Get Bigger, not Smaller

Good Housekeeping is going to increase the physical dimensions of its magazine (its trim size, in industry lingo) and increase its cover price, reports Folio:. Its January 2010 issue will be the first to sport a size of 8.25 x 10.875 inches (up from its current 7.875 x 10.5 inches). Cover price will increase 99 cents from $2.50 to $3.49 (still very cheap by magazine standards).

Bravo! I think one of the worst things magazines do is reduce, reduce, reduce in attempts to save money and cut costs. (ahem, Rolling Stone.) Magazines become thinner, smaller, print on cheaper paper, and include less content, and their costs still usually increase.

It's like the 1970s all over again. That was a decade in which everything got more expensive, smaller, and worse. Candy bars (okay, I was a child in the 1970s, so my perspective wasn't really on Rolling Stone and Good Housekeeping) got smaller and they cost more and there were fewer types of them.

Let's see innovation and growth instead. If I'm paying money for a magazine, I'll pay another dollar or two for one I want, if I get more for it. Since Playboy is reportedly considering raising prices, which I think is a good move, they should also consider increasing the trim size of the mag. After all, even many foreign editions of Playboy sport larger sizes (see the German edition, for example). Make the magazine stand out on the newsstands, and send the message that the magazine -- whatever magazine it is -- is confident enough in what it has to sell that it's willing to be bold, demand fair payment from customers, and escape from the path of ever-smaller, ever -thinner, ever-worse.

Good is better than worse.