Insights from Paschal Fowlkes

Much has been made of David Carr’s NYT column this week, The Fall and Rise of Media, and it’s depiction of the end of a New York dominated by traditional powerhouse media publishers (“the large heaving engine of books, magazines and newspapers”) and the “bright young things” that are replacing them. It’s a phenomenon as fascinating to observe as it must be hand-wringing to endure.

Google’s new Fast Flip news reader, announced last week, seems to have one foot in the future and one in the past. With its quick-loading visuals and sequential page navigation, fast flip is clearly trying to more accurately replicate the experience of browsing a “real” printed periodical. But do we really want this?

I can’t seem to throw a stone—or click a link—without hitting another account of the newly announced Kindle DX. Reading online and in actual newspapers about of this new device prophesied to supplant these formats, I wonder if we’re not in something of an evolutionary crisis.

The site 247wallst.com recently predicted the disappearance of 12 major brands, including two so-called print brands, Esquire and Architectural Digest. Reading the rationale (foundering ad sales, publishers’ willingness to eliminate poor performers), I found myself asking, What does it mean to be a print brand? Where does it happen? and, What constitutes its “disappearance”?