That's quite sad. I've been a long time subscriber and would encourage anyone who has not read it to pick up a copy. With all the junk polluting our newsstands, this is one magazine that deserves to be saved!

posted July 17, 2007

Thanks for giving me the vehicle to step up and try to change things, Sebastien! I, too, am a fan of Business 2.0 and would hate to see it dissolve.

I've often thought that Fast Company and Business 2.0 combined would make for a good publication.

A friend's invitation to join and connect on Facebook didn't get me to act last week, but your request did...I've now accomplished two things today!

I'll be watching to see how this plays out...

posted July 17, 2007

Hmm. depends. (See my more thoughtful answer that I sent you directly.)

posted July 17, 2007

I wouldn't mind if it stayed online in some form or another, though. I seem to plow through RSS feeds faster than paper magazines (no matter how great they are).

posted July 17, 2007

It really depends. Business 2.0 is one of my fav. magazines. But just posting stuff in social websites doesn't help a lot. Getting new subscriptions and an increasing amount of news stand sales help. And if a percentage of the executives at Linkedin would spend some advertising $ at Business 2.0...

It never ceases to amaze me that pr managers and marketing managers complain a lot about the ever decreasing amount of printed media, while they're just not spending any amount of advertising at those 'beloved' magazines.

Oh well, that's life. I'll just renew my sub. to Business 2.0 and get some people to buy extra news stand copies in The Netherlands.

Best regards,

Paul

posted July 17, 2007

Now you've really ruined my day!!! :-} This is truly one of my favorite business publications and I'd hate to see it go away. Do you suppose that having enough support via social media or e-mail would help the editors/publishers prove they have a following out here? Remember the TV shows that have been 'saved' by fans writing letters?

posted July 17, 2007

In this case, the structure of the ad sales process at Time, Inc. seems to be at fault. Making a difference in that area is not likely unless advertisers who have had Business 2.0 space thrown in on bonus deals for ad buys in Time and other publications under the umbrella decide that they will demand to pay for it because the readers can't be reached elsewhere.

Even if this were to happen, it would require that Time Inc. be willing to absorb the loss of that revenue from another publication.

Changing either of these situations with Facebook and Digg seems unlikely.

If social media can save Business 2.0, it will be because it influenced venture capitalists to support editor Josh Quittner's efforts to save the publication, not because advertisers or Time, Inc. will be impressed by the buzz, in my opinion.

Links:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/business/media/17mag.html?ref=business

posted July 17, 2007

It is possible however if the subscriber base can't justify it's existence then it's a longshot.

The magazine industry seems to be going through a bit of a shakeout with profitability of the title not always being the primary driver as exemplified by Condé Nast's recent cancellation of several titles including the popular Jane. It is a shame because every magazine I find useful in anyway seems to get canceled. Soon we'll be left with nothing but celeb rags and "how to use windows" mags

I think it is interesting though that of all the links in the facebook group posting not one of them is to Business 2.0's own site www.business2.com. Which led me to realize that although I subscribe I don't think I had been to the site in sometime. When seeing it was branded with CNN's branding I saw why.

Is Business 2.0's half-assed web strategy a contributing factor to it's demise?

Links:

• http://www.business

posted July 18, 2007

I think if the Facebook group is responsible for 'saving' the magazine, it won't be because a couple hundred fans joined the group. It will be because the advertisers will be re-connected with the magazine's readership and up ther ad buys. That's still a big if.

posted July 18, 2007

I think as a physical publication, it should die. I love Business 2.0 but theres no point fighting to keep print alive. The print business is dying. If Business 2.0 is to survive, it should completely abandon print and double its efforts online.

posted July 18, 2007

Print is dying a slow death (or not so slow according to others). Like other who have provided answers, I'm a fan of the publication, but w/ so much great information and social networking going on already, it will hardly be missed. So, yes, it's a long shot for them to stay around and make profit. Even the Wall St. Journal has to look at ways to transform it's current model.

posted July 18, 2007

Wouldn't it be ironic if Business 2.0 folded its print edition and went online as Business 3.0?
(Just think of the marketing push—online fluidity, user-generated content, video capabilities, online-and-offline delivery, social networking, RSS feeds, and everything else that goes with it.)

First, full disclosure: I happen to make a living off the so-called "dying print media"—which has been running headlines about its own "imminent" demise for a quarter-century—so I may be biased. (I also casually know some Business 2.0 and other Time Inc. staffers.)

True, major print mags like Premiere, InfoWorld, and Jane have shut down of late—and it's true that Business 2.0 occasionally seemed like a weird hybrid of FastCompany, BusinessWeek, and Wired, a hybrid that had trouble defining itself at times.

But there was always a place for it in the media marketplace, and its writing was always top-notch.

I'd be sad to see it go -- and I'd have to blame its parent company.
Magazines these days are hard-pressed to make a profit with their print editions -- but their custom publishing units and event divisions are (or should be) capable of making money hand-over-fist.

Even a magazine that's a money-losing loss-leader can still be a massively valuable property—if its parent knows how to position it, cultivate its audience, and differentiate it from the other titles on the newsstand.

For those who are interested, I've included links to:
1) The New York Times coverage of B2.0's situation; and
2) The San Jose Merc News' piece (which includes a nod to you, Sebastien!)

Interestingly, several of the pieces mention that LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman is among the Facebook Fighters.
(And the other members, it's been said, are heavy in the media world, perhaps signaling for the first time a professional-caliber membership at (and practical use for) Facebook?)
Keeping my fingers crossed.

(What's unfortunate is that the kind of tech industry that Business 2.0 thrived on—VCs, start-ups, and IPOs—is on the verge of rebirth (if it hasn't returned already).

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
j.

Links:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/business/media/17mag.html
• http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6420704

posted July 20, 2007

A few thoughts.

T-W hasn't done a good job of making B2 distinct and uniquely compelling.

T-W hasn't applied basic aspects of social networking, how to integrate ranking, commenting, referencing that's commonplace throughout the web.

By sticking B2 underneath CNN Money on the web, B2 doesn't mean anything.

B2 content could easily continue to exist as part of Fortune, CNN or any number of other brands (maybe even a quarterly insert with Fortune).

There are probably dynamics at work here that we don't know. For example, I would guess that its newstand sales have dropped, making it difficult to rationalize keeping it on the shelves.

Once the newsstand goes, and given the poor state of the website, it's time to throw in the towel on the brand.

I wouldn't bemoan the loss of the brand. I think there probably are more efficient vehicles to deliver this content to its target. Just because the print magazine dies, doesn't mean the content has to.

Another alternative might be conversion of the existing magazine into an electronic format, as I described in a recent article (link below) at feedgrowth.com -

Links:

• http://feedgrowth.com
• http://feedgrowth.com/publishing/look-ma-no-hands/

posted July 22, 2007

What a bad news, just came back form holiday yesterday and were very pleased to see my lat issue of B2.0 in my mailbox. Can't think it could be one of the last one....using social media to save B2.0? Not sure, interesting perspective to use social force/value instead of $force/value. I would like to think this is feasible.

posted July 23, 2007