The blogosphere reaction has been, as you might imagine, negative. Generally, reaction falls into two camps: those who think that the publishers are missing the point, and those that think, yes, the Internet is indeed killing print media, and good riddance to their exclusive club and their turned-up noses.

A few examples:

Kent Anderson in the blog the Scholarly Kitchen: “With the iPad only weeks away from shipping, it’s an odd time for magazine publishers to spend $90 million to very publicly throw their digital editions under the bus.”

From Kit Eaton in the blog Fast Company: “With the dead-tree publishing industry in a bit of a mess right across the board, and a huge, difficult digital upheaval threatening to arrive any moment, you may well argue that spending a whopping $90 million on a printed-mag advert campaign is a little silly.”

And from Bo Sacks on the Print CEO blog: “Once again, they completely miss the damn target, this time by a mile, a 90 million dollar mile…I guess my complaint is their marksmanship. There isn’t any. The people who put this campaign together to protect print don’t have a clue what they are doing and who to aim at. It is also clear that the instigators of this campaign don’t use the Internet or any digital component therein.”

A rare positive, or at least, non-negative came from Rebecca Chandler on the Real Estate Book Blog: “My experience in our industry has been that most of those who would like you to think that print is dead and ineffective have a stake in influencing real estate agents to invest in online advertising.”

Perhaps the most compelling, and accurate, assessment came from Gavin St. Ours on the Gavin Show blog: “The problem at the heart of their “Internet vs. magazines” argument is that they’ve incorrectly labeled the Internet as a medium. The Internet is a delivery tool for media, like the printing press…Magazine industry leaders appear to not understand the gravity of that idea. You can hear it in the first few seconds of the video…The real discussion is this: In order to stay competitive in a digital world, magazines are going to have to find a way to deliver the immersive experience of their analog versions on digital platforms. That means using the Internet as a delivery tool.”

St. Ours is dead on the money in his assessment, as was Popular Science Editor Mark Jannot, as David Perry discussed in March. At Trade Press Services, we believe there is tremendous value to be found in both traditional print media and emerging, interactive, online media. The key always has been, and always will be, providing value to the user of the medium, whether that means compelling stories, helpful advice, accurate data, or timely reporting.

Both print and online forms have a place and serve a purpose. While a magazine cannot display video or up-to-the-second reader comments, it is extremely portable, easy to use, inexpensive, and easy to share with anyone, regardless of the user’s technical sophistication. (When $300 book readers and computer pads become so common as to be throwaway items, that may change. Until that time…)

Trade Press Services routinely helps companies place articles in both traditional print journals and online media. At Trade Press Services, content will always be king, and that means well-crafted, thought-provoking, bylined articles submitted to the best publications exclusively for our clients. We look forward to the innovations that online publishing will continue to bring, and also expect that the traditional print magazine will still command a strong position in the battle for readers’ eyes for a long time to come.

According to a press release from the leadership of Condé Nast, Hearst Magazines, Meredith Corporation, Time Inc. and Wenner Media, the ads will feature:

headlines such as, “We Surf the Internet. We Swim in Magazines.” And “Will the Internet Kill Magazines? Did Instant Coffee Kill Coffee?” These will be accompanied by iconic images lifted from the pages of America’s best-known magazines. A second phase, which will start appearing in June issues, will embed multiple cover images from widely recognized publications into the ad’s text to convey key phrases.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, magazine publishers are buoyed by a recent bump in print advertising sales and data from Mediamark Research & Intelligence showing a 4.3% increase in magazine readership over the past five years.

The press release states the ads will reach 112 million readers a month, while the WSJ story says the total value of the ads is more than $90 million.

One such ad features Michael Phelps:

Another substitutes popular magazine titles for words:

A YouTube video features the CEOs of the five companies explaining in their own words their rationale for the campaign:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Is this a desperate last gasp? A long-overdue statement of the facts? Or are they missing the point about the future of magazines altogether? (And is it a little odd they’re promoting the virtues of magazines to people who are already reading one?)

In my next post: industry reaction, and my thoughts.

Writes Jannot, “Every time I summon up the vision of a paperless PopSci, my enthusiasm for the prospect inspires a certain horror among some readers, who write to let me know how betrayed they feel at the very notion of us migrating away from the pleasingly physical product that you’re holding in your hands.

“That said, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about what makes a magazine a magazine, and here’s my definition: A magazine is a periodically delivered package of stories carefully curated, written, and designed by an expert editorial staff centered on a topic of passionate interest for a group of readers.”

Jannot touches on two very important issues relating to the viability and importance of traditional printed magazines and journals in the 21^st century. First, he mentions a “pleasingly physical product.” The psychological aspect of this cannot be understated. The arrival of a magazine, newspaper or trade journal often evokes the same feelings we experience when we open a gift package or see a mystery unveiled.

The cover of the publication hints at the wonders within. As we begin to proceed beyond the cover, it brings back memories of reading our favorite books or magazines from start to finish, whether they’re Hardy Boys novels or the latest issue of Seventeen, Forbes or Manufacturing Today. There is a very physical ritual involved in turning the pages, scanning the ads, and reading one’s favorite sections over and over.

The other key point that Jannot brings up is the notion of content. The Internet is full of seemingly authoritative content, much of which is unreliable because there are few filters or barriers to entry. Anyone with a PC and an opinion can look as professional as Reuters with the credibility of the New York Post. But when readers open a respected magazine or trade journal, they expect that what they read and see will be factual and accurate. There are high barriers to entry in the production of a publication, which generally leaves it in the hands of professionals, or as Jannot says, “carefully curated, written, and designed by an expert editorial staff.”

All of this suggests that due to the powerful psychological power of the printed word and our cultural tendencies to regard high-quality printed content as expert and factual, the era of the magazine, newspaper and trade publication is far from over. And that’s true. What remains to be seen is how to translate these powerful characteristics of print media to the digital stage. As Jannot says, “A glossy printed page is a great medium—I certainly don’t deny that. But for me, a full-color tablet redefines gloss completely.”