Has Rolling Stone found its beat again?
Read this article this morning in the media section of The New York Times. It is called “Rolling Stone Back on a Roll”
I used to be a reader of the magazine – and I agree with the article – the magazine fell flat, but now subscriptions are up, their voice is back and their kicking again. What do you think? What makes a magazine come back from its own death? What helps a magazine survive during times when people are cutting finances? What’s the secret formula? Or is there one?
A few lines from the piece:
In its early days in the 1960s and ’70s, Rolling Stone was a chronicle of the counterculture where a generation of young people came to find political coverage that spoke to their disaffection.
Then those baby boomers grew up, and Rolling Stone’s voice seemed to fall flat.
But no more. Those same subversive tendencies that led Jann Wenner to help found the magazine in 1967 were reawakened under the presidency of George W. Bush. And now, rather unexpectedly, Mr. Wenner’s magazine is hitting its journalistic stride — aggressively tackling the American government on financial regulation, the environment and the war in Afghanistan — with a Democrat in the White House, one that Mr. Wenner supported.
It may be premature to imply that Rolling Stone’s recent uptick is a comeback, in my opinion.
The formula mix founded on music coupled with the anti-Vietnam War and anti-establishment moments of the late 60s and early 70s doesn’t resonant or carry over with the same weight vis-à-vis world events happening today; at least not amongst a newer, more sophisticated, generation.
With all the other professional media sources available to one at the click of a button or touch screen why would large audiences need get news, ideas, and music from a low culture bi-monthly print vehicle?
The reason I used the adjective professional above revolves around the latest, June 25, 2010, Rolling Stone issue.
Lady GaGa tells all… please! Other than the typical nearly "bares all" shot on the cover, what can Stefani Germanotta possibly tell us on a few pages that hasn’t already been said at nausea on just abut every other media outlet in the world. Her and Akon are a marketing machine, period, end of lesson.
By-the-way, you can find better pictures of her by doing a Google images search.
No, the buzz revolves around that small text on the lower left side of the "Lady Gaga Tells All" cover. It reads Obama’s general—that would be General Stanley McChrystal who was heading the efforts in the Afghanistan military operation.
Unless one has been living in a closet, then you heard what happened to the general.
If you have been living in a closet, then here is the 411. McChrystal and his staff allowed an admitted out-to-get you, left-wing ideologue, Rolling Stone reporter named Michael Hastings in their inner-circle.
Hastings, embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, ended up spending 10 days in Paris and Berlin with McChrystal and staff after getting "stuck" with them because of the volcano in Iceland, according to an interview he gave NBC.
While in France, on a social night out, some derogatory comments were made about the Obama administration by staff members. This gets printed in the article, the Whitehouse reads it, and the general ends up resigning (aka gets fired.)
Here is the analysis by Bill O’Reilly of FOX News.
Hasting claims the comments were made on-the-record. Primary sources claim they were off-the-record and is currently being investigated by other journalists.
Given Hastings past, less-than ethical, journalistic record you can make your own call. Once you do that you can decide if a magazine that employees reporters like him are a reputable source for your "worldly" knowledge.
That said, the New York Times is probably on it’s last leg; it’s hemorrhaging cash due to a mass exodus of readers. Its staff are the last people to get business related opinions from.
Well I’ll be honest, I’m not a frequent reader of The Rolling Stone. However i have been to the doctor this week and did read the new issue before they drilled into my tooth. Lets just say it didn’t help ease my pain. I know that the magazine has changed from what I’ve read in the past to now and personally I don’t believe it can bounce to what it once was. From our generations obsession with aquireing the latest technology to the media’s obsession of utilizing those devices in order to get infomation out as fast as possible, there’s no way a magazine company can compete.
I have to agree with Alexandra. Today is a fast paced world and people are all going mobile. Most people, including myself, get their media through the devices we carry around all day, including our smart phones, iPods and laptops. Humans are impatient these days and we want our information as soon as possible. Magazines and newspapers are slowly dying off and eventually will only come in electronic form.
I agree with the comments above. This generation is full of technology. I have a 2 year old cousin who already knows how to work an iPhone. Our society has grown accustomed to using the internet, cell phones, laptops, ipads, and GPS systems. Come on we don’t even use maps to get around anymore! Today’s world is impatient and demanding. Like Matthew said there will be a time when newspapers and magazines will become extinct.
to add to my previous comments, I believe Rolling Stone is losing readers because the once cool and hip writing that would later develop into what is now blogging; has modernized the magazine making it less innovative to the public. Due to other sources of media that have caught up, audiences for the once thriving publication have dwindled.
I agree with Matthew. Blogging has become the most popular way to talk about interesting and controversial issues. Back in Rolling Stones’ heyday, the technology we have today had not even been dreamt of. Rolling Stones provided a source that young people identified with back then, just as the internet sites we have now do for us. Although it is true that Rolling Stones has made some headlines with some of their recent articles, it remains to be seen whether or not it has made a comeback. As everyone else has said, magazines will eventually become extinct, but only because of the evolution of technology. Electronic devices make it easier for us to acquire news, but they haven’t changed the basic form of communication.
@Matthew
You’re right about the aforementioned technological boom. People are really taking this “going mobile” thing to a new level and I think its great.We’re constantly on our laptops and ipods; we can’t get enough. I’m just stoked for the next big thing. Who knows?
But that’s not wanna I wanna talk about.
When you said, “Humans are impatient these days and we want our information as soon as possible. Magazines and newspapers are slowly dying off and eventually will only come in electronic form.” I have to admit i was a little put off. I’m inclined to disagree with you here. To be completely honest, im not a huge fan of getting my info from electronic sources. WHAT EVER HAPPPENED TO A CUP OF JOE AND A NEWSPAPER?
I miss the convenience of having something tangible to work with when I receive my media. It’s nice to flip through the pages of a magazine, it’s almost a hidden organization in front of you. You know, you see something you like, you tear it out, you earmark a page, you flip back to that hot model and show your friend next to you, etc…
I’m incredibly visual when it comes to learning. I also am a little bit of a kinetic learner myself. It’s nice to have something big and shiny to play with when you’re absorbing bits of information.
I don’t think Rolling Stone or any other popular magazines are going to be erradicated anytime soon. Besides they all have websites and such to read anyway. Rolling Stone’s solution is simple: have some good PR, have their magazine adapt to today’s culture, revamp it and put it out there.
Well, there’s my two cents.
Magazines are unique in the sense that they have the daunting task of reviving themselves instead of pushing other ones out of the way. Pushing out other forms of media is hard when that particular medium (print media) is currently viewed as dated and pasé, however, magazines are only dueling with themselves to revamp their current state. From the view of a magazine publisher, the articles being published need to look appealing, be easy to read, and be interesting, NEW topics to readers all over the world. Maybe pages and pages full of words that everyone hears every second of every day on just about every form of media just isn’t going to cut it. The magazine needs to offer something that iPhones and blogs just don’t satisfy. Most people enjoy holding real paper in their hands and tangibly turning pages instead of just sliding their fingers across a backlit screen. It’s the magazine’s job to pull readers in and present information that would be considered new and fresh. Who knows? Maybe Rolling Stone will make a comeback, but in my opinion, it’s too quick to judge.
At 62, it pains me to agree with the aforeprinted comments, but I do. Rolling Stone doesn’t pack the punch it once did and people have indeed forsaken ink for electronics.
Having said that, I would highly recommend, and google, Mike Taibbi’s marvelous expose’ on the financial crisis that was printed in Rolling Stone.
He takes a complicated and dull subject like derivatives and compares them to street-con-games of a different era. A superb piece of writing.
For a controversial political viewpoints on-line, I recommend Counterpunch.org.
Always attributed, always well written, and always a diferent point of view.
As someone who has never picked up an issue of Rolling Stone, I am not very knowledgeable on the magazine’s content. However, with the addition of more biting and conversation sparking pieces this magazine could begin to see a glimmer of its former self. The iconic nature of the magazine also contributes to its possibility of success. Concerning magazines in general, the same basic formula applies. People want to be intrigued and informed. In order to revive, a magazine has to give people everything they are getting through the internet and blogs. It’s true that electronic media is front and center in today’s world, but I agree with Mikela. There will always be people who desire the physical presence of their reading material. It may seem as though magazines are slipping away, but in all actuality people are not ready to let go.
Rolling Stone has made a come back, and I feel it’s due to them revamping their magazine. I used to read Rolling Stone. I even have a few older copies at my home in Miami. However, I stopped reading because I lost interest for many reasons (I’m more into Glamour and Elle). This magazine and any other magazine regains their street cred by going back to the issues and topics that kept their readers interested. I feel like Rolling Stone lost that oomph, and because of low subscription rates, they had to go back to the drawing board and start over.
The only way any magazine can survive is to stick to what they know. If they do make any changes they should not be drastic. Slow changes can be a good thing. But if the changes don’t work then other measures need to be thought up.
I’ve never really been a follower of Rolling Stone magazine and I’d only ever read it if my brother had picked up a copy of it so I am unable to compare it’s quality past and present. It’s respectful that the magazine can openly say that their work has not been up to par past few years.
I think it is important to have big stars on your cover, like the infamous Lady GaGa, because that is the first thing the potential consumer sees, so from a marketing point of view, that’s the way to go and could change the minds in a split second of a consumer waiting in line at Publix. But a big star on the cover alone will not keep subscriptions high. A magazine has to have writers that are thoughtful, intelligent, and have a point to what they are saying. They have to write something that is different than what every other journalist is writing in every other magazine. It’s like a column in a newspaper. You need to keep your readers attention so that for every issue they are waiting for your story. Rolling Stone has always been a big name magazine and I hope they are able to stay in their stride and become a very respectable magazine again.
Rolling Stone, when I was younger, was what my parents used to read. I guess to keep themselves looking young and in sync with what was happening in the music world. Now, I find myself attached to some of the articles that Rolling Stone provides. Understandably from the article, yes, their subscriptions are lower than they are used to, but with some of the recent cover stars they have had, the magazine is bouncing back.
For Rolling Stone, or any magazine, they can’t give up the style of writing that any reader generation is used to. Switching to “mainstream” writing will only make the magazine sound like every other publication that is out there. When I looked at a recent issue of the mag, gossip stories where flooding the pages, something that my parents say never used to happen. Rolling Stone managed to turn itself into a political-pop-culture cliche, a title they can hopefully switch around.
The secret for Rolling Stone and its editors is to stick to the hard-pounding political criticism they throw out there – without the gossip bits. Stay true to what you know, and keep putting interesting cover photos and wacky celebs on there too.
I can honestly say that I have never picked up a Rolling Stone’s magazine, I don’t know why, I guess it’s because it never really appealed to me. When I think about Rolling Stone’s all I really think about is that one magazine with rock bands in it. However, in reality, it’s not like that at all. After reading the article in the New York Times about the magazine being back on a roll, I noticed that in the article they talk about regulations on the oil spill, I never would have known that the Rolling Stone’s magazine talks about such topics. I think in order for a magazine to come back from the dead you need to target your audience and put crap in the magazine that they want to read. So for instance, now that I know that the Rolling Stone’s actually has current event articles, I kind of want to go out and buy one right now. All this time I thought it was just some magazine that had grunge and punk articles, which when I think about it, is really dumb of me to think that all this time. I also noticed awhile back that on the front of the Rolling Stone’s magazine the entire cast of The Hills was on it. Is that when the Rolling Stone’s came back to life? Once they put the faces of The Hills on their cover? Probably, teenyboppers go bananas over that stuff. When it all comes down to it, the secret formula is really just putting a bunch of random crap in your magazine. Lady GaGa, updates on the oil spill and the cast of the Hills. Now that’s the secret formula for success.
One of, if not the best, expose’s on the financial crisis was done by Mike Taibbi of Rolling Stone. An amazing piece of writing, in which he takes a complex subject like derivatives and analogizes them to street con games. He takes a boring subject like complex finance and not only educates his readers but entertains them as well.
Yeah as long as the “Stone” keeps investigative reporters like Taibbi, they’re alive and kicking.
I have never read Rolling Stone magazine. But, I think that many publications go through periods of low readership and perhaps even flat writing. What helps a magazine survive during times when people are cutting finances is availability. If a magazine puts articles and videos online than readers can enjoy clips from the magazine for free. This may give readers an incentive to purchase the magazine or even a subscription. A magazine can come back from its own death by maintaining a foothold in the everchanging multimedia news sector. If a magazine creates applications for smart phones and puts articles and videos online than the publication can make a come back. I think magazines die when they don’t keep up with the constantly changing multimedia world. I don’t think there’s a secret formula, but there are vital components. A magazine should have competent, thorough, and ethical reporters and should provide their readers multiple multimedia outlets for use.
I do not believe that there is a secret formula. Rolling Stones magazine just so happened to revive itself from its slump in sales. Every company and product has its ups and downs, and essentially the long-running magazine would eventually come back into popularity. Since Rolling Stones is now updating itself with popular celebrities, such as Lady Gaga, they are boosting their sales and will continue to thrive if they always are writing and/or producing the “next big thing”. RollingStones is just another example of how powerfully influential pop culture can affect the industry.
What do you think? What makes a magazine come back from its own death? What helps a magazine survive during times when people are cutting finances? What’s the secret formula? Or is there one?
As a former reader of Rolling Stone, I can say I’m shocked they did make a comeback. It, like many other magazines, experienced a steady decline in the quality of its articles. This, along with the use of the internet to read the news and financial cutbacks, many magazines went out of business. The recent change in reporting style (along with material to write about) helped to save the Rolling Stone and boost subscribers. I don’t think that the success Rolling Stone found is commonplace though, as there are many other factors which determine if a magazine can survive. The changing values and desires of Americans, along with financial cuts, has made many magazines irrelevant or replaced easily by the internet. The only hope magazines have currently is to return to its roots and insure the quality of its articles while at the same time keeping up with other forms of media.
What do you think? What makes a magazine come back from its own death? What helps a magazine survive during times when people are cutting finances? What’s the secret formula? Or is there one?
The cover says it all. The instant attraction from the celebrity on the cover brings the reader in. It’s understandable in this economy that sales may not be as high; however, it’s up to the magazine to increase sales by having more interesting articles and famous celebrities. Otherwise, what couldn’t someone get free on the internet? Rolling Stones as well as all other magazines will become extinct pretty quickly if they don’t think of something creative and new to attract viewers. This formula is no secret.