by Ethan Johnson
January 11, 2007
For all practical intents and purposes, TUX Magazine is no more:
For a number of reasons--not all financial--the model we had built for TUX was not sustainable. At this point, a group of us who were involved in TUX are tossing some ideas around. Where it will go we are not sure but let me assure you that enough of us feel TUX needs to exist that we will try our best to come up with, as they say, "Plan B".
I will keep an eye out for whatever form Plan B might take, but in short I will say that I feel some amount of vindication in my decision to fold Vision Monthly as quickly as I did. I saw down the road that my chosen operating model wasn't going to work, and unlike TUX I didn't serve up any advertising. Which means they had a somewhat steadier revenue model than I did, and still folded. It just took longer.
When I launched Vision Monthly, I made it quite clear that it was "people powered." Every issue had a fundraising goal, and a minimum content target. It could have been entirely produced by yours truly, but who wants to read that? When the fundraising goals were consistently missed by over 50% (of an extremely modest goal relative to readership) and the content goal was missed by 90%, I folded the tent. TUX had a more stable pool of writers (whereas I insisted on diversity) and still folded. Again, for all practical intents and purposes, barring a successful re-launch.
However, I do not consider either venture to be a failure. Vision Monthly gave me enormous respect for the magazine industry, and as a side benefit I learned how to use Scribus, the open-source professional publishing system. TUX was there when I needed it as a Linux n00b. TUX got to be a bit too "kindergarten" for me in short order, but it was a good crutch, just as we all learned how to speak, read and write our respective lanuages. In either case, I liked the idea of the "bridge" publication that put the "portable" in "PDF". Now that TUX is retired to the drawing board, there is talk of making some sort of Wiki-fied version of the magazine. Perhaps that will be a better model, however, you can't take it with you, especially on an airplane. TUX and Vision Monthly were expressly designed to be printed or read on a computer screen, on or offline. There's not enough of that kind of thinking these days.
As technological advancements continue to bring the traditional stomping grounds of the "professionals" to the casual enthisiast, I think more people will gain a greater respect for what is usually derided as the "mainstream media" or MSM. Heck knows that I sure appreciate the Food Network more from a production standpoint, because demonstrating how to cook something that should be insultingly easy is anything but. Especially on camera. I'm adjusting to speaking to the camera by imagining that I am addressing someone in the room with me. I'm finding as I edit the footage that my mannerisms are such that yes, I'd pretty much look like that (hand movements, facial expressions) if someone were in the room with me and we were having a conversation of some sort.
Back when I did audio podcasting, I gained a greater appreciation for how the pros do conventional radio shows. Since I was producing the show alone, I had to develop the theme, find the guests, work up the interview questions, interview the guests, edit the material down to 20 minutes, put the master audio track together, publish it to my web site, and notify the various aggregators that a new show was available/publicize the show. Rinse, repeat. It was gruelling for as few shows as I did, relatively speaking. I still remember when I went bonkers trying to cover the topic of "marketing" in 2 hours (of completed audio time) over the course of 2 days. I get sympathetic hoarseness just thinking about it, considering that each 20 minute interview meant at least 1 hour of phone time. I have no idea how the pros put shows together every day. Ugh.
By the way, Vision Monthly was even more gruelling to produce than the podcasts. It's demise was a blessing in that respect.
Of course, the secret to success for the pros (besides money) is that they have people on board. Traditional magazines have all sorts of departments and planning meetings to the point of knowing what the theme of the February issue will be in the previous July. Traditional TV programming takes a small army of people to produce every show, regardless of the perceived quality of the material. And let's not even talk about movies, OK? The opportunities that we amateurs have to produce quality media are unsurpassed in this day and age, but let's not kid ourselves: There's a reason why the pro stuff looks better, and it's not simply a matter of economics. But hey, we can all laugh and learn something with our tape recorders, video cameras, and publishing software, right?
By the way, the video version of In the Kitchen is coming soon to Democracy TV and iTunes. I'll know the show is a hit when it gets poached by spammers. Mmmm, poached spam. <EM>
