First 313 words of the document:
"We would also like to receive your views on our decision to publish
Readership and circulation of magazines has declined
Can be updated more regularly
Can use two step flow
Can include a wider range of content (video, audio)
Fans can contribute more easily and quickly
Doesn't require distribution to shops less expense
Supports the independent format.
Print magazines are costly to produce. As a result, they rely on established mainstream
artists to pull in regular income. Only the NME promotes brand new music, but even then
the fan base is established to a degree. Print magazines have to minimise the risk of
bankruptcy in the modern era.
Older readers / some consumer types won't like the change from a paper magazine
Requires expensive technology to access
Can't include traditional cover mounts like TOTP
Can't charge for the magazine will need to get consistent high hits on the site to attract
Does it compete with mainstream or support it? Unclear. Supports new artists, who then
become mainstream. Philosophy and aims of the site need to be clear to avoid it becoming
`another promotional tool' has to have its heart in the right place for independent,
passionate support of new artists.
`Pitchfork' is a niche product. On the one hand, only independent music fans will know
about it but how do you promote the site, so it is popular, earning hits and income from
adverts, but without it becoming mainstream and ruining its vision for new talent?
Pitchfork has had to move into festivals and sponsored events to increase exposure, but
feels more like an established institution now rather than a secret goldmine of information.