Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A clear sign, and only 14y later they closed. For someone who knows the industry, such a sign is not as irrelevant as it appears - nor is closing down a sudden affair. Unlike SV startups which can fold in 1-2 years, news outlets are surprisingly resilient in their dying. It's a long process of decay with several milestones along the way... As someone that has worked in the print business, and am familiar with the h…
You're getting into some really sketchy territory though. For it to be a sign, it has to be consistent. The vast majority has to follow the rule. Exceptions need to be rare. Otherwise, it's pretty much just anti-survivor bias. Yes, all failed magazines did these things, but doing that thing doesn't mean your magazine is failing if all magazines do it. Or if enough successful magazines do it. 14 years is a long time.…
Exceptions are rare. Flaying outlets invariably go through those moves.
>14 years is a long time
"long" makes sense only relatively. For some things the time from writing on the wall to dying off is in that order, and media outlets are one of those things. I already explained how a SV startup for example can die in 1-2 years (because VC money dry off etc), but established news outlets die much more slowly, in the span of a decade or more.
It's something I've witnessed unravel from inside and from friends inside with dozens of outlets in my country, and I've seen from afar the same path followed in several others in the US and elsewhere.
>Yes, all failed magazines did these things, but doing that thing doesn't mean your magazine is failing if all magazines do it.
Well, all magazines don't do it. Few do it without such reasons.