NME to be free / still shite

[Small Man Big Horse]

From The Guardian:

NME to go free with larger circulation
Music magazine to boost distribution to 300,000 as weekly paid circulation drops to around 15,000

NME is to be taken free and given a circulation boost to 300,000, as publisher Time Inc UK looks to breathe new life into the struggling music magazine. The title, which was launched in 1952, has seen weekly sales plummet in the last decade with a paid circulation currently just over 15,000.

The £2.60 magazine continues to see sales fall at a rate of 20% annually, and Time Inc is seeking to revitalise the title by taking it free from September. "This famous 63-year-old brand was an early leader in digital and has been growing its global audience successfully for the best part of 20 years," said Marcus Rich, chief executive of Time Inc UK. "It has been able to do so because music is such an important passion and now is the right time to invest in bringing NME to an even bigger community for our commercial partners."

The distribution model is similar to the strategy successfully adopted by titles including ShortList, Sport and Time Out, with issues being handed out at tube stations, as well as in selected retailers and, in the case of NME, by students at schools and campuses. The magazine is also aiming to cash in on the rise in popularity of NME.com, which will get an overhaul ahead of the print edition going free.

"NME is already a major player and massive influencer in the music space, but with this transformation we'll be bigger, stronger and more influential than ever before," said Mike Williams, editor of NME. "Every media brand is on a journey into a digital future. That doesn't mean leaving print behind, but it does mean that print has to change, so I'm incredibly excited by the role it will now play as part of the new NME."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/nme-to-go-free-with-larger-circulation

I guess I probably will pick it up from time to time if bored, which is something given I haven't bought the magazine regularly since 2001 (and the last time was about six years ago as I was stuck at a train station for ages), but I can't imagine it'll improve in any way, and if anything will go the way of Time Out and be largely even more pointless than it was before.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It's a much better idea in my opinion. If it's not selling, and no-one's reading it, it's a cultural irrelevance. This is especially important when compared to a publication like Private Eye which serves a faithful niche interest, NME is essentially nothing if people aren't reading it.

You'd really worry that they've jumped on the notion far too late and that there's actually no real coming back, even if they cover the entire nation's train stations in their dreck, which let's not forget is largely fawning, manufactured hype and obnoxious industry-enabling bilge.

[23 Daves]

It's a much better idea in my opinion. If it's not selling, and no-one's reading it, it's a cultural irrelevance. This is especially important when compared to a publication like Private Eye which serves a faithful niche interest, NME is essentially nothing if people aren't reading it.

You'd really worry that they've jumped on the notion far too late and that there's actually no real coming back, even if they cover the entire nation's train stations in their dreck, which let's not forget is largely fawning, manufactured hype and obnoxious industry-enabling bilge.

I agree. They almost have no choice. It was selling in sub-Morning Star quantities, and recently seems to have had a circulation close to that of ultra-specialist music mags like Shindig and Classic Pop. In a situation like that, you either put the periodical out of its misery or completely change approach. They seem to have tried everything else.

The NME used to put more effort into its live pages and "upcoming show" pages than it does now, so I wonder if we'll see a return to that approach, so it becomes a "Time Out" styled organ. That in turn might see them turn away from having the same 8 or 9 artists on the front cover all the time.

[Vodka Margarine]

Free or not, if the NME is going to start covering fashion, film and politics to a significant degree it can't really be called the New Musical Express any more. It's moot in any case, as there hasn't been an actual 'new' act on the cover for ages, what with all the dead legends, pointless lists and "20 years of Noel Gallagher's eyebrows" type anniversaries that need to be covered as frequently as possible.

[Norton Canes]

Shame that as a nation we are neither able to produce, nor consume in sufficient quantities to sustain, a decent heavyweight music-oriented broadsheet weekly.

Come on The Daily Mail, forget the BBC's tennis coverage, this is the sort of thing you should be getting indignant about.

[Ignatius_S]

FWIW, here's the thread when this was rumoured to be happening: http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,46626.0.html

Free or not, if the NME is going to start covering fashion, film and politics to a significant degree it can't really be called the New Musical Express any more. It's moot in any case, as there hasn't been an actual 'new' act on the cover for ages, what with all the dead legends, pointless lists and "20 years of Noel Gallagher's eyebrows" type anniversaries that need to be covered as frequently as possible.

One of the commentators on the Guardian link said those topics were covered in NME during the 1970s and 1980s, before being phased out - going from memory but think there was an element of truth there.

[Paaaaul]

Free or not, if the NME is going to start covering fashion, film and politics to a significant degree it can't really be called the New Musical Express any more. It's moot in any case, as there hasn't been an actual 'new' act on the cover for ages, what with all the dead legends, pointless lists and "20 years of Noel Gallagher's eyebrows" type anniversaries that need to be covered as frequently as possible.

The 'New' in New Musical Express refers to the magazine being a new version of the old Musical Express.
It doesn't refer to 'New Music'

[holyzombiejesus]

I remember them having Neil Kinnock and Ken Livingstone on the front, and they covered loads of the Red Wedge type stuff. I remember them reviewing films too. Not really sure how you can cover fashion without just devoting whole pages to pictures of jumpers and frocks and the like.

[NoSleep]

Music periodicals (or periodicals of almost any other kind) are not really needed anymore. This makes sense for the NME, only because they already had a policy in place that they would only write up bands that bought advertising in their pages, which doesn't really give you a lot of scope for vanguarding new or interesting music; now the advertisers will probably determine the content.

[holyzombiejesus]

This makes sense for the NME, only because they already had a policy in place that they would only write up bands that bought advertising in their pages, which doesn't really give you a lot of scope for vanguarding new or interesting music

Really? I knew that The Stool Pigeon did that but didn't realise NME did too. How long has that been the case for?

[Phil_A]

I seem to remember Select having quite a big fashion section in it's latter years. Lots of slightly fetishy pictures of sweaty gym types. Didn't save it from the scrapheap, obviously, but it's odd the NME has ended up going the same way.

[greenman]

A good move but I just think that more could be achieved by giving people some real toilet-paper.

[NoSleep]

Really? I knew that The Stool Pigeon did that but didn't realise NME did too. How long has that been the case for?

Yes, since the mid-80's

[Squink]

Yes, since the mid-80's

No, that's just paranoid nonsense. Every single band written about in the NME since the mid 80s has bought advertising in their pages? Not even remotely possible.

[Nice Relaxing Poo]

This is the mighty publication that brought us Gay Dad and Meanswear. For shame.

[Ignatius_S]

This is the mighty publication that brought us Gay Dad and Meanswear. For shame.

Menswear was first pushed by Melody Maker.

[NoSleep]

No, that's just paranoid nonsense. Every single band written about in the NME since the mid 80s has bought advertising in their pages? Not even remotely possible.

I was told about this by somebody who worked in the NME office, selling advertising space. Maybe some little support band in a gig review got a mention otherwise. The last band I can remember them campaigning to get signed was Siouxsie & The Banshees.

[Vodka Margarine]

The 'New' in New Musical Express refers to the magazine being a new version of the old Musical Express.
It doesn't refer to 'New Music'

I genuinely didn't realise that. All I know is that when I started buying it in 1996 they seemed to have new or at least contemporary bands on the cover virtually every week. Fast forward a decade and it's all about the Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Ian Curtis, with Pete Doherty or the Arctic Monkeys as token concessions to the 'now'. At some point they obviously decided they wanted to focus more on infiltrating the market dominated by Q or Mojo.

[Norton Canes]

All I know is that when I started buying it in 1996 they seemed to have new or at least contemporary bands on the cover virtually every week. Fast forward a decade and it's all about the Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Ian Curtis, with Pete Doherty or the Arctic Monkeys as token concessions to the 'now'. At some point they obviously decided they wanted to focus more on infiltrating the market dominated by Q or Mojo

That's not true though. They push plenty of new bands every week, they have pages devoted to them. Unfortunately, but perhaps not unexpectedly, they still rely on the recognised bands for their covers and 'feature' articles - but the new bands get a lot of space too.

[ajsmith]

I genuinely didn't realise that. All I know is that when I started buying it in 1996 they seemed to have new or at least contemporary bands on the cover virtually every week. Fast forward a decade and it's all about the Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Ian Curtis, with Pete Doherty or the Arctic Monkeys as token concessions to the 'now'. At some point they obviously decided they wanted to focus more on infiltrating the market dominated by Q or Mojo.

It was still regularly featuring current landfill indie bands on the front cover throughout the 00s and I think was actually doing pretty well as a zeitgeist-capturing organ of that era (I always think it's a shame that Melody Maker wasn't able to hang on for six more months so they could have similarly prospered circa 2001-08) however, once the bottom fell out of that scene they've been floundering badly; they irrevocably  narrowed their focus to be a straight down the line indie rock mag and that scene is now long gone and of no interest to the kids of today so they have to stick the great old men of rock like Bowie and top 100 lists on the front. Loaded seemed to take a similar depressing veer into old-man boringness (a craggy - faced Noel Gallagher on the cover of the final issue?) before it whimpered out earlier this year.

[23 Daves]

I was told about this by somebody who worked in the NME office, selling advertising space. Maybe some little support band in a gig review got a mention otherwise. The last band I can remember them campaigning to get signed was Siouxsie & The Banshees.

If that's true, it certainly wasn't always the case - definitely freelance reviewers got all kinds of unsigned bands into the NME's live pages in the 80s and 90s, including many who never went on to be signed and certainly never took out any advertising. I remember when Southend was going through something of a decent local band drought, all kinds of middling pub rock acts worked their way in courtesy of the regional contributor.

Might be the case these days though, who knows?

[PaulTMA]

This will probably mean less Johnny Marr front covers at least

[Panbaams]

All I know is that when I started buying it in 1996 they seemed to have new or at least contemporary bands on the cover virtually every week. Fast forward a decade and it's all about the Beatles, Kurt Cobain, Ian Curtis, with Pete Doherty or the Arctic Monkeys as token concessions to the 'now'. At some point they obviously decided they wanted to focus more on infiltrating the market dominated by Q or Mojo.

Like they used to say on the Word podcast, you can't fake hype any more. Back in the day the NME editor could send a photographer off to a new London club, or a reviewer to a gig by some unknown band, and build it up as The Next Big Thing. Nowadays with social media it's harder to contrive that. "This band has 23 Facebook friends. This is not a movement."

[CaledonianGonzo]

That's not true though. They push plenty of new bands every week, they have pages devoted to them. Unfortunately, but perhaps not unexpectedly, they still rely on the recognised bands for their covers and 'feature' articles - but the new bands get a lot of space too.

That is the Mojo / Uncut model, mind.  Same handful of cover stars,  but decent enough variety in terms of the actual artists featured inside.

[the psyche intangible]

Since Word sank I have no interest in browsing the shelves anymore. I buy Viz on the clinical till and punch the glass "NO" for a chocolate orange in WHS.

[Funcrusher]

No, that's just paranoid nonsense. Every single band written about in the NME since the mid 80s has bought advertising in their pages? Not even remotely possible.

I was reading NME in the mid 80's and they were interviewing people like Derek Bailey and Ornette Coleman

[chand]

The last time I bought it was about 10 years ago in an airport. It had been a few years since I gave up on the NME, and the three things I noticed about it were: 1) the articles, album reviews etc, all seemed really fucking short, 2) it was packed full of 'advertising features' and various bits of the mag were sponsored or 'brought to you by' such rock'n'roll brands as Wella ShockWaves, and 3) I'd still heard of all the bands.

I haven't been to the website in years, but last time I did it looked like a ticket website with some incidental magazine content attached. I guess it was kind of inevitable that as the arse fell out of the physical publishing industry, the NME was gonna have to diversify, but it made it all feel kind of grubby. The (ShockWaves) NME Awards Tours featuring three or four up-and-coming bands were EVERYWHERE, and thus the magazine felt like a PR pamphlet for said bands, rammed full of interviews with them, glowing live reviews and so on. They'd been putting on tours like that for years, but by 2005/6 it had become like a full-scale self-sustaining business model. Watching the NME review its own gigs was pretty depressing. I remember clicking onto the website in the middle of one such NME Awards Tour and literally everything on the top half of the website was related to the NME Awards Tour in some way; news stories about what had happened last night, links to reviews of last night, interviews with the bands about how the tour was going, prominent links for you to buy tickets to tomorrow night's show in your area. Just dull and a bit sad.

[NoSleep]

I was reading NME in the mid 80's and they were interviewing people like Derek Bailey and Ornette Coleman

I will have been after that, then (and i'd suggest those articles you mentioned will have earlier than later mid 80's). The last worthwhile thing I remember them doing was the PE front cover and article by Stuart Cosgrove, then they seemed to lose the thread with anything that wasn't indie rock (particularly the growing interest in dance music).

[Quote]

In the 90's they did cover dance music but largely it was filed away in it's own little niche column somewhere near the front of the mag, so as not to interfere with the 'real music' reviews and featues later on. I remember because I first read about Boards of Canada in there and thought they sounded intiguing, sadly though I lived in a shitty little town with only a Woolworths and a Virgin record shop so didn't get to hear them until a few years later. Bigger acts like The Chemical Brothers and the Prodigy got the usual band treatment - features, live reviews etc.

In the late 90's there was a bit of a brief attempt to promote more 'challenging' music like Godspeed etc, and diversify a little bit, probably in reaction to all the Britpop whoring they'd done a few years previously (and because all most nothing was happening in British music at the time). It fell on it's arse sales-wise though and when the Strokes came along they went back to hyping up spotty boys with guitars and skinny jeans.

[greenman]

In the late 90's there was a bit of a brief attempt to promote more 'challenging' music like Godspeed etc, and diversify a little bit, probably in reaction to all the Britpop whoring they'd done a few years previously (and because all most nothing was happening in British music at the time). It fell on it's arse sales-wise though and when the Strokes came along they went back to hyping up spotty boys with guitars and skinny jeans.

It wasn't too bad around 97-99, I'd already stopped buying it that often pre Strokes but they made sure I never bothered again.