A New Structure for Magazines?

Executive Summary
Magazine publishers have applied the lesson of centralization to almost all aspects of the operations except one. Editorial has remained decentralized for fear of destroying the uniqueness of each title. Yet closer examination of the editorial team reveals some staff members are necessary to create the brand value. Others are needed to support the brand. Both are necessary but is it best to keep them in the same organization?

A central editorial support group made up of copy edit, production, research, and associate art direction can, in theory, serve multiple titles more efficiently than holding them organically in each title.

Benefits include:

• Lower costs of operation
• Sharing of best practices
• Big book resources for small books
• Easier implementation of central systems
• Easier launch of new publications

Challenges include:

• Resistance from the brand team
• Outstanding management is a requirement for success
• Locating and measuring costs

Centralized editorial services may not be right for all magazine publishers but DeepBridge thinks the issue is worthy of examination.

Why Are Magazines Organized The Way They Were 100 Years Ago?
Magazines as we know them started to take form in the 1850's and took on their current organization before World War I. Were we to step back in time we would feel comfortable with their organization chart. They had editors, writers, researchers, reporters, art directors, photo editors (well, illustration editors), and production staff. All these specialists were necessary because most magazines were independent companies. There was no one else to do the work.

After World War II magazine chains began to form. The process was slow through the 1950's and 60's, accelerating in the 70's and 80's. In the late 80's and 90's many chains became the magazine divisions of large media corporations. The trend toward centralized ownership continues, albeit at a slower pace.

Consolidation brought reorganization. Accounting, human resources, technology support, purchasing, and other business functions moved from the individual titles to corporate groups. Centralization experiments were held with ad sales, web operations, licensing, and manufacturing. Some of the trials were successful, some were failures but companies were willing to try new structures to increase profits.

Magazine editorial teams were exempt from centralization. On the surface this made sense. The goal of centralization is to minimize uniqueness in the interests of efficiency. Magazines prosper because of their unique look and voice. Tampering with the formula is to court commercial suicide.

Each editorial staff can be divided into two groups: those necessary to create the unique look and voice - the brand value - and those who support the process. In the first category are senior editors and writers, the art direction team, and key photo editors. In the second are copy editors, assistant art directors, researchers, and the production staff. All are needed to make the magazine but only some are needed to make the brand.

A final observation is that magazine workflows contain sharp peaks and valleys. We are not referring to the iterative creative process. Rather, all magazines spend much more effort at the end of the cycle than at the beginning. Much of this effort is from those who support, rather than create, the brand.

A maxim of American business is "xIf ain't broke, don't fix it". This generally sound advice tends to take the shape of leaving things as they are when times are good. Once business conditions deteriorate, we start questioning long held beliefs. For the last three years advertising and circulation numbers have been down and there is no sign of demand increasing sharply. With the growth conditions the worst since the Depression, it is an appropriate time to question even fundamental beliefs.

An opportunity exits to cut costs by placing those who editorially support the magazine/brand in a central services group. This group could more efficiently support the brands by better balancing staffing to the peaks and valleys of demand of the individual titles. In its most extreme case, the central group would contain copy editors, associate art staff, production teams (print and web), and imaging experts. The members of the group would be matched to specific magazines in a way that levels out the peaks and valleys of utilization. The result should be more efficient and thus less expensive support for the brands.

This is a radical proposal and like most radical notions offers a mix of benefit and challenge. Let's look at each.

• DeepBridge sees the benefits of centralized editorial support as:
• Lower costs of operations. By shifting support staff to key points in each magazine's workflow overall staff count can be lower.
• Best practices across all books, where they make sense. Some uniqueness is necessary to make the brands successful but a central group is a good place for introducing ideas of benefit to each of the magazines.
• Central systems become a reality. One of the challenges of introducing central systems such as licensing, advanced web management, and digital asset management is convincing X number of individual, independent, idiosyncratic, publications to buy in and change their way of working. Here, back room functions can be standardized without disrupting the publications.
• Bigger book resources for smaller books. The larger infrastructure of the central services group becomes available to smaller books.
• Lower costs to launch new publications. While the hard work of defining and staffing a new brand remains, using the central services group lowers costs.

We see the following challenges to implementing and managing a central services group.

• Resistance from the brand team. Senior editors will fight for their own, dedicated support staffs as they are taking a risk in parting from them. Strong leadership and economic incentives will likely be necessary to move past this objection.
• Only the finest managers will succeed. Providing custom service to each title while recognizing the efficiencies of centralization will require exceptional management skills, especially the management of change.
• Keeping it measurable. The creation and operation of a central services group requires measurement against measurable standards. Few publications carefully measure the costs and results of these activities.

There is no question that the establishment of central editorial services groups is a risky, difficult exercise. Is it effort worth taking? In a time of limited to negative revenue growth cost savings are the necessary answer for managements looking to increase shareholder value. With so few other alternatives on the horizon this radical approach will come to pass at some publishers. There is little doubt that the concept is sound though the execution is difficult. Exceptional publishers will take the risk.

DeepBridge Content Solutions is systems integration and consulting firm centered on content technologies. Our regular white papers are intended to start conversations with and among our colleagues in the media industry. Feel free to distribute this document, or click here to comment back to us.