We saw a fascinating occurrence in the magazine world yesterday. The following statement was sent to us from the editor of Q Magazine in relation to their most recent issue.
Here is the cover of their latest issue that is about to grace our stands.
As magazineologists, we find this very interesting. It highlights that magazines can still be of journalistic value. Its not all just about gloss and pretty designs. Opinions still interest us and mags such as Q or new kids on the block such as The Monthly remain relevant despite all the online content that is available.
This particular issue of Q will sell out. There can be no doubt of that. Fans and those of us simply curious enough to be swept up in popular news will race to pick up this issue the moment we airfreight it in. Why is this going to happen when we can easily get our fill of Michael Jackson news on a plethora (been hanging out to use that word) of websites? Why are magazines still relevant?
We don’t expect answers from you… these are intended as rhetorical questions. We don’t care why mags are relevant, nor can we always articulate the reasons why we think they are relevant. We are happy to exist in ignorant bliss like Papa Bear from the Bernstein Bears Great Honey Hunt – smells like honey, looks like honey, tastes like honey… must be honey (you are meant to replace “like honey” with “relevant” here).
The statement by Paul Rees shows how a monthly magazine can be overcome by events. This would never have happened to an online magazine. Everything is instant and changeable online. However, the physical copy of Q magazine lying on my coffee table will stimulate more conversation and debate in my household than anything I read online.
Magazines are social lubricants. Damn – was trying to avoid an articulation of relevance! The above statement by Paul Rees puts this issue of Q into context. News sites have gone nuts after the death of Michael Jackson, yet magazines will also sell more copies. It highlights to us that we live in a multi-media world. Funny how the word multi has been taken by some to mean only online. I thought the word multi referred to numerous. Are magazines relevant? I wonder what Paul Rees would say?