Very interesting to see the lack of comment on, (or indeed in most places lack of any mention of) Personnel Today’s recent announcement that it is shutting the print version of the publication and going online only.
A few years ago I was brain storming with some of my then colleagues about what changes we might see in the industry. During the conversation I suggested that the printed version of Personnel Today would at some point, in the reasonably near future, cease to exist. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was scaremongering and being deliberately disruptive (I get accused of this a lot!). Received wisdom then was it would “never happen” not least because of the conservative approach of its target audience to technology. Interesting that is also the argument I’m still hearing today about the potential for social recruiting.
Anyway fast forward not very many years and the switch happens. Rather than being seen as a revolutionary or controversial bit of breaking news, it is treated as just an unfortunate but ultimately routine announcement about the loss of more jobs in the publishing industry
The lesson here is very much that today’s unthinkable change can quickly become tomorrow predictable reality. With that in mind I wonder what changes the next five years are going to bring to our industry……
June 18th, 2010 at 8:15 am
It’s all about timing isnt it?! Get it right and you are a visionary. Get it wrong and you are a scaremongering do badder/dufus! Thats the problem with being ahead of the curve but its a small price to pay for the satisfaction of seeing these things come to fruition!
I think the last 2 years have really shown that print – its current business model in particular – is not viable. not if you are relying on advertising revenue, particularly around jobs, to fund it. Its been a no brainer for years in my opinion but alas, i too was alone in my thinking.
All eyes on People Management……
June 18th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Wasn’t it originally predicted in the year 2000 Matt, but has taken a full 10 years to come to pass?
Remember when the so called “wise heads” at the time envisaged all print media going digital, as well as the much vaunted paperless office? The need to print anything on paper, and distribute all over the country, at great cost, was seen as an inevitable casualty, when all that information could be delivered over the “Information Superhighway”.
Of course we hadn’t factored in the resistance to the established print vested interests, the lack of speedy broadband and the syrupy inertia we’d have to plough through. But now, 10 years later, it has come to pass. The Times is selling its wares online, most trade mags have online versions (incuding the fancy flash page turney ones) and online ads are sold with free slots in the magazine, as opposed to the other way round.
I won’t say it’ll all go the same way in the next 12 months, but this is an important brick in that wall, and shouldn’t pass without comment.
June 18th, 2010 at 11:49 am
More information on Personnel Today’s move to online only publication can be found on the Personnel Today website at http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/06/18/56004/rbi-announces-proposed-migration-of-personnel-today-to-online-only.html
June 19th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Matt,
You have beat me to this – as the original founder of Personnel Today (still have the 1st copy as it came of the press at our printers in Colchester) I heard the news at their 20th birthday party some months ago with sadness.
I also feel a sense of guilty and responsibility at it’s demise – back in 1999 I talked about the death of print – like you we could see the end game.
What drove that was the fact that the UK Recruitment Media industry sustained many of the B2B magazines but also newspapers – Johnstone Press are today in huge trouble and recruitment used to take up 21% of their revenue – gone.
So the adoption of on-line recruitment was always going to change the publisher model – the development of social media as a publishing tool hasten it.
RIP the Magazine long live the On-Line Community.