SisileStowers214
I've been spending a ton of your time in doctor's waiting rooms lately. The only sensible factor about it's having time to make amends for magazine flipping. I recently had time to flip through 'Oprah', several 'Peoples', 'Time' and 'Newsweek'.
All contained a version of an advertisement asking whether or not the net would 'kill' magazines? Every copy went on to 'respectfully' acknowledge technology's price. It felt like two wrestlers shaking hands before the first round commenced.
What should the connection between net media and magazine print media be? Adversaries? Frenemies? Friends?
The next part of the magazine print offered an 'olive branch', inferring that hard copy and the web were naturally complementary.
The grand finale, when the 'olive branch' ceremony was that, "while generally drowned out by the net drumbeat," arduous print does what the web doesn't or cannot. Their conclusion? Arduous copy media builds relationships. The web does not.
Magazines are nonetheless the first medium for advertising. It's simply a matter of time before Humpty- Dumpty falls and cracks.
As so much as building relationships better, additional intensively or otherwise, I beg to differ.
Magazines can't build use of Skype or Webinars to possess long-distance, face-to-face interactions that way you can along with your computer.
Magazine print, regardless of how spectacular its pictures, cannot engage you in person as a YouTube video will.
When the video isn't a high production piece, however rather a straightforward one created from home, it feels, well, real. It gets past hype that has infected advertising since the dawn of time.
Which isn't to say that the price of the 'arduous' printed word ought to be disparaged. Quite the contrary. The downside of social media is that it is transmitted in such fast time that the writing is simply colloquial conversation. LOL. Fine literature and quality wordsmithing be damned. I sincerely hope not.
If our kids are solely exposed to 'regular' net missives, whole generations of future, really fine, authors could be lost. It's unfathomable.
To counsel that magazine print builds relationships a lot of than net social media does, is simply plain wrong.
Social media has a way greater reach that is expanding exponentially.
How that reach is cultivated once contact is created is the results of the quality of content and its relevancy to readers. Aha! Something in common.
What is true, what is smart, is that we would like each. Social media on the internet and magazines and newspapers (to the extent they'll survive) should be complementary.
There may be a power within the written page that's personal and not fed by the pc screen regardless of how sensational the video.
The beauty of a vellum bound book is unparalleled. The thoughtful method that goes into writing arduous copy looks somehow, a lot of divine, than the hustle-bustle we confront on-line.
If the two can learn to share the playground and make nice, I assume both will be the richer for it--as can their audience. Why can't social media and magazine media be friends?
