Jane at 2012 National Magazine Awards (NYC)
I had the very good fortune of attending this year’s National Magazine Awards in New York City. Even though I’m not yet officially on staff of the Virginia Quarterly Review, I was able to tag along and see if any of the three nominations would turn into wins. (Sadly, not this year.)
The final award of the evening was given to Time, as Magazine of the Year. The editor who came up to accept said, “We will win in the long run. Quality wins.”
What did he mean by that?
I’m not really sure. Presumably “we” refers to the magazine industry, and magazines will win because they put out quality material unlike … who? Bloggers like myself? Online-only publications? Atavist? Salon? Huffington Post? Flipboard? Netflix? Google? Amazon? Apple? Wikipedia? Cable television? All of the above?
What comes to mind is a recent column by David Brooks. He has a unique argument to make about why we ought to move away from the “competition” mindset that’s prevalent in our culture:
Instead of being slightly better than everybody else in a crowded and established field, it’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally dominate it. The profit margins are much bigger, and the value to society is often bigger, too.
[We’re] talking about doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche and identity. You’ve established a creative monopoly and everybody has to come to you if they want that service, at least for a time.
That probably hasn’t provided an ounce of clarity, has it?
But I sure would like to know why a magazine might feel threatened in such a way that it must defiantly insist, “Quality wins!” Would it not be more valuable, as Brooks points out, to establish a distinct market, niche, and identity? (Especially if you’re media agnostic about it?)
I hope everyone will discuss in the comments, especially your thoughts on whether quality always wins.
Join the conversation
57 Comments on "Does Quality Always Win?"
Good article, Jane. Obviously quality doesn’t win. If it did, people would still be paying fortunes for handmade, hand-illustrated books made by monks. Instead, people pay a fraction because the technology (and, thus, business model) changed. I wonder how many monks couldn’t sell their beautiful, high quality books, and complained, “But my books are better quality.”
That depends on the item. Quality often involves few sales but excellent pricing. I have a cousin who paints gorgeous landscapes. He doesn’t sell many but, when he sells a painting (and he does), he earns a living. I don’t even ask his prices because I know I can’t afford them.
I read about a book that sold for $4,000. Who would pay that much for a single book? Collectors.
Quality can sell, even hand-illustrated books made by monks, if you know your target consumer and reach them.
Sure. I agree with that. I guess the question then is, what’s more profitable, quality or scalability? And of course, every artist strives for both. They have their originals and their postcards.
That doesn’t seem to be TIMEs problem though. They’re scaled. They don’t have a signed first edition they can sell for a small fortune. Maybe they should.
Joe is right. Case in point: Jersey shore. Quality sometimes prevail with the help of good fortune.
Great analysis, Jane. I know a couple of small businesses that have really taken off with that mindset.
No, quality doesn’t always win, at least not when it counts. And Brooks’s comment doesn’t offer much clarity: creating a new market is competitive, and dominating it more so. (Consider the personal computer or tablets.) Sounds like the editor felt his status threatened. The discussion also sounds rather academic: some tenured professors turf-protecting, other professors – tenured or not – actually thinking they can positively impact students, students creating chaotic mazes intellectual and social, and administrations playing hardball moneyball. Ask a general, usually the hardest part of a war is creating and maintaining supply lines and chain of command.
It will be interesting to see what tools develop to help us be more selective … And what criteria will be used to measure quality. (Especially when just-good-enough is exactly the quality we need … Or when it’s harmful.)
In my opinion quality is a valuable component of any product or service which adds to the value of that product. If the product is then marketed effectively using the quality component as one of the main benefits of buying or using it, it will successfully compete in it’s marketplace. Also quality is usually easily discernable through the performance and longevity of the product, and provides the most valuable sales promotional aspect there is..word of mouth endorsement.
Ahhh…in this case, and this is solely my humble opinion without one shred of evidence, I think Time magazine may feel threatened because it has in many ways lost touch with the reading public. Is this true of magazines in general? I don’t believe it is, but as you alluded, there is a plethora of other sources for news, and a host of “niche” magazines. Time feels particularly threatened, I believe, because it has tilted too far to the left in its reportage and has shown its petticoats, so to speak. But then again, that is just my opinion.
I think you make a great point.
I also think the subtext was: Quality magazines that you’re supposed to pay for are threatened by free content elsewhere that is presumably lower quality yet still manages to satisfy readers’ needs.
No, Quality does not “always win” and it will continue to be increasingly harder for quality to win until someone figures out what the magic button is for funding free-to-the-consumer quality content.(Insert shoulder shrug here, because I dunno) I just had this conversation on Wednesday. A friend told me, “If an article I want to read requires a subscription then I just keep surfing until I find the info I’m looking for, for free.”
The Career Builder ad should read:
Innovation wanted – Publishing industry
Whatta ya got?
100% agree about the value of that award!
Yes, quality wins, if by quality we mean by *excellence.* If all we mean is *superiority,* then anyone can compete and dominate.
So in this case, quality means “timeless”?
Jane, I guess that’s how *I* see it (sometimes), yes. Quality is timeless. And Oliver below, oh yes, quality is definitely subjective. Like I said, the market speaks loudly in the present and doesn’t make a distinction about “quality,” but over time–like beyond ones lifetime–I think it does.
In the arts, quality is subjective, a moving target. And when we argue about quality in a specific art (e.g., literature), often the market speaks loudest (unfortunately).
Yes! That bifurcation … It’s interesting. I’ve read trend pieces that advocate avoiding “the mushy middle” of a market. An example might be Sears (which is struggling).
Definitely food for thought …
It may be related that Hollywood has been moving toward a similar bifurcation, making low budget films and blockbusters but not so much in between.
Oh, goodness. I didn’t read Brooks as pro-magazine at all. Sorry that I wasn’t clearer.
As far as the context of the quote from the editor at TIME, there was no further context aside from the magazine awards ceremony itself (with an audience of NYC magazine folks), and that of an acceptance speech: “We just won this award … thank you all … quality wins!”
But even though you weren’t present and in the awards environment, I’d say your comment is appropriate, and something I agree with.
Good point from Joe Bunting about the monks. People like cheap and easy.
If “quality” won, then seasoned, virtuoso musicians would make more money than the auto-tuned pop princess du jour. What “wins” is what can be owned and controlled by corporate oligarchs. (Unless, perhaps we want to re-define “winning” as something other than financial success.)But I like Brooks’ argument, which might be seen as a corollary to the “long tail”: find a niche and be the best frog you can be in your little pond.
While I wholeheartedly agree, to be fair to the editor who made that statement, I think he was using “we” collectively—as in, “the magazine publishing industry will win in the long run because we have quality.” Unspoken was who exactly does NOT have quality, who perhaps is winning in the short term?
Most of us like to think that quality wins, but I don’t think that’s always true. Timeliness (no pun) is a factor, and with the quality of blogs today, I don’t buy mags as often as I used to. (3 or 4 on a regular basis). I don’t subscribe either.
Quality is subjective, and is better rated by the consumers, rather than people selling the product.
On top of establishing your own niche, I think it’s just as important to keep up with the times and allow yourself room to grow into the future, rather than holding onto an old business model. I’m sure many magazines are working on their online presence and moving towards virtual distribution, but unless you’re on the front lines of change, there isn’t much room to be innovative and establish your niche.
It may be that the quality argument is the only definition print publications can understand in this fast moving arena. Technology has leveled the playing field to the point that even if you are able to curate the David Brooks scenario, is there enough of a solid audience (and its roving attention span) to populate your new niche in such a massive way to repel another entity from recreating your niche even better?
I’m enough of an optimist to think you can still create trust and loyalty that keeps a community with you, provided you remain of service and innovate along the way.
I’m neither optimist nor pessimist when it comes to people and their behavior in a world that is constantly grabbing at each precious second of the day.
I’m neither optimist nor pessimist when it comes to people and their behavior in a world that is constantly grabbing at each precious second of the day.
Damnit, Jane. You look that good- and you like bourbon. Goodness. I definitely have to attend a magazine awards dinner in future. (I have to admit I have to Google bourbon. I have NO idea what they heck that is made from. It sounds very flammable.) Oh, yes, the quality issue. Well. I think I’ve mentioned that quite enough for a few words. Cheers.
Quality will win only if people “want” quality and are willing to pay for it. Apple has proven this.
Note that I said “want.”
People may need certain quality to better their lives, but if they don’t believe that they need it, it’s a lost game.
To be successful, you have to sell people what they want and not what they need. Walmart has become very successful at this even though they don’t sell quality.
So stick to creating products that people want even though you think that people need certain products to better their lives.
Depends what win means. In the end, history always wins. And whatever lasts. In the short term, winners tend to rely on hype and marketing to keep a competitive advantage. Tooting your own horn is a basic form of marketing we all understand. American as apple pie. But, here, and I mean literally here, in the virtual commons, is where we all win. That’s a space I think none of us fully understands yet. Speaking of the power of marketing and winners, see my blog post on The Scream: http://thenewremembrance.blogspot.com.
Sometimes quality doesn’t win, but of course it often does. I am glad you have included David Brooks’ thoughtful commentary. His thinking on creating a new market reminds me of J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter series. Marketing expert Susan Gunelius has written brilliantly about that in her book, Harry Potter: The Story of a Global Business Phenomenon (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
There’s that word again, “quality.” I think it should be mentioned that (and if I don’t speak for you, please chime in) no one here commenting is looking for a demise somewhere. We’re in essence trying to help define what may or may not be definable and what it might take for magazines, journals, papers and other media outlets to survive in this ever-changing environment. There’s value to be found everywhere in differing flavors and intensities. I think the consensus that’s forming is there are pockets to be served and focus on quality is on a sliding scale depending on your consumer.
Jane, why do I get reminded of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes whenever I read some book reviews? Any writer who can afford a substantial marketing campaign gets rave reviews even before the book is published. How come? Because some big wig has given the nod and the media repeat the accolades parrot-wise. No, quality does not always win. Pray to the goddess of luck to smile upon all of us writers and poets who have to Scream to be noticed, Well, the Scream reminds me again of the Emperor’s New … Let me bid you bye before the art world comes chasing me!
I am not sure if quality always wins, although I’ll always hope that. The only thing you (as the creator/originator) can expect is personal satisfaction. Case in point: I spent an enormous amount of time on my latest novel (a mystery this time)Tulip Season: A Mitra Basu Mystery. The print version will hit the market soon. This is the first time I am not writing mainstream. Do I worry about the book? Yes, I do. Mostly though I am happy that I’ve sweated over something entirely new for me.
BTW, this -“I look at some of the most talented people in his class who worked really hard for their success only to NOT “rise” only to see others who who were clearly not ‘the cream.'” is supposed to read: “Now, years later, I look at some of the most talented people in his class who worked really hard for their success only to NOT “rise,” while others who were clearly not “the cream” did.” (had a trigger finger there! :).
Dr. Alexander beat us to the “Blue Ocean Strategy” comment.
Anyway, we think value more than quality always wins. And value is subjective to the individual. So when TIME magazine stops delivering value to masses of people, they’ll stop winning.
it still wins in my world. The population shrinks daily, but we’re not extinct yet.