Is This The Right Way To Keep Journalism Alive?
Photo by brotiN biswaS
Hi everyone
There was much derision at Rolling Stone magazine's announcement offering people the chance to write for the magazine – for $2,000.
The magazine has set up Culture Council, "an exclusive community for visionary leaders" who, after passing a vetting process and stumping up an annual fee of $1,500 plus $500 upfront, will have the “opportunity to publish original content” to its website and become “thought leaders”.
Its website goes on to whip up interest by adding that such “thought leaders” would “join a vetted network of innovators in the multi-faceted entertainment industry who are doing inspiring work”, adding that “each member adds a unique vibe and perspective to the community”.
Each person will be able to set up a member profile, featuring their bio, company description, and areas of expertise.
Rolling (pun intended) my eyes at the nauseating copy, it goes on to say that these so-called thought leaders will “get direct access to a living, breathing think tank – a crucible for the visionaries of our time”.
With a feeling that now anyone can claim to write for Rolling Stone, critics are outraged. However Rolling Stone has insisted that people are vetted and it's created a dedicated editorial team to help polish the words that pass through its gates.
Does it weaken the Rolling Stone brand? Pimping out a slice of the well-regarded title to those with the biggest pockets probably may devalue it slightly in the eyes of its loyal readers, who may feel stung that only the rich amongst them can contribute to their favourite magazine. But from what I understand, it sits separately on the website and it should be clear that the articles haven't been penned by its in-house journalists or freelancers. This style of publishing is similar to Forbes’ membership councils where you have to pay to join.
While thought leadership posts are generally unpaid, paid-for content has been propping up publishing for years. Whether we pick up the Guardian or The Telegraph, chances are we'll see (clearly marked) branded content.
In an ideal world our most valued newspapers and magazines would be free of advertising, and we'd listen to radio without hearing an annoying ad. But unfortunately journalism is underpaid and underfunded, and many publishers are on the cusp of going under. We saw popular music title Q magazine fold last year after 34 years. NME stopped printing after 66 years. Shortlist was axed.
Do we want our magazines to find new ways of survival if not enough people are willing to pay for journalism and advertising revenue isn't stacking up?
Have a lovely rest of the week,
Susie