Old News and Red Herrings

I want to tell you my insight into this article: Trade Publishers Warned of Google's Impact on Magazines, but first I need to share my opinion about the article:

[rant] This is not new news. Only by substituting the word 'Google' for the more generic 'Internet' makes it news. Trade publications have dealt with lowering ad revenues and subscribers for a while now. And the article doesn't clearly address why and how trade publications will survive.

'If Google can slice and dice [information],' said one b-to-b publishing executive, 'and give highly qualified users to very targeted advertisers, then what do you need a trade publication for?'

If the author or the executives would answer this question, it would be a much more constructive article. The author jokes about 'Chicken Little', while acting like one himself.[/rant]

The sky is not falling...it has been falling! Trade publications and newsletters that were of low quality or easily replaced by the convenience of the web have already been killed. This pressure will continue on trade publications. I've written about this before.

Trade pubs need to provide new information (including product info) that readers want to learn about. Engineers are not going to search the net to see if Agilent has a new impedance analyzer, but they'll be thankful if it is presented to them. Google can't do this--that's the red herring.

I spend money on Google to generate leads, something it does efficiently. Trade ads (or articles) provide awareness of what is newsworthy from my company, as well as branding--both of which Google can't do. Only the trade publications that can deliver awareness and branding (for the reader and the advertiser) are going to survive. Why the article didn't say this, I don't know. After all, it is posted by AdAge, a trade pub itself.