Skip to main content

Gadget3 to close – End of consumer tech era at CR Media

Sources close to Gadget4 have shared that the consumer tech lifestyle magazine will stop publishing either after the March or April 2010 issue.

The closure of this consumer tech lifestyle magazine will mark the end of an era of tech magazines at CR Media.

CR Media held the license to PC World Singapore in the 90s until IDG Singapore decided to launch PC Advisor in the early 2000s.  CR Media then switched to the PC Magazine license but ended it last year when PC Magazine decided to go 100% online.

PC Advisor was closed within a year and IDG Singapore sold of most of its enterprise tech licenses, including Computerworld Singapore and CIO Asia, to Fairfax Media in Asia.

I was told that the sales team might be switched to the other publications but the fate of the editorial team is unknown.

Singapore is, therefore, left with T3 Singapore, Stuff Singapore, HWM Singapore and Digital Life as the reminding contenders in the consumer tech lifestyle print market. Note that HWM Singapore and Digital Life is part of Singapore Press Holdings and Digital Life is a supplement of The Straits Times, a Singapore daily.

I am deeply sentimental to CR Media because I started my career at PC World Singapore then.

The closure of Gadget3 has highlighted two things.

First of all, the tech industry has not grown over the years with the major players relatively the same players. Hence, not only were there less pies to go around, the pies were getting smaller and smaller by the day.

Secondly, the value of the print ad, to both the consumer and the vendors, have shrunk exponentially. For example, let’s say a print ad for a 12 months campaign is at SGD12K a year, I believe the vendor would use the SGD12k for more direct marketing activities, like events or even social media outreach.

The question here would then be how can such niche print publications survive? The easy answer would be to go online, but that posses other problems as banner ads are not really attractive to vendors here.

I feel the answer for niche publishers is for them to offer social media marketing activities as part of the revenue source, and slowly replace ad revenue as the main source of revenue as time passes by.

Publishers should combine their experience as content managers and take a leaf out of the new PR book to offer brand journalism to the individual vendors.

For example, a publisher could start a Facebook fanpage or blog which focuses on digital photography and to have a brand sponsor the content of the fanpage.

Within the fanpage, the publishers can link content to articles about how to take great photographs, or the best way to care for your digital camera or to interview the brand’s experts on digital cameras.

As the fan base grows, the publisher can organise events for the fans, cover the events, do an event write-up with photos that tag the fans or the participants if they are part of Facebook.

Tech enterprise publications can also do the same. For example, they could start a fanpage of cloud-computing and put every single news about cloud-computing in that page or interview experts and put content there. If a vendor comes along to sponsor the content, then focus on the vendor instead.

Isn’t this brand/corporate journalism part of PR? Yes, but as PR evolve to survive, so must the publishers. If Jeremy Woolf of Text100 says how corporate journalism can fill the gap of traditional media, why can’t the print publishers join the foray too?

The line is already blurred who should be handling social media. The PR agencies say they can do it, so do the ad, media buying and online agencies. So why can’t publishers go the same route?

In general, for niche publishers or print publishers to survive, they have to evolve to find new value for their vendors in terms of marketing and advertising. Print may not die or go extinct anytime soon, but it doesn’t mean the money for it will continue to exist forever.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …

Kudos To Huawei 2 Year Warranty For P9 Series

When it comes to smartphones, I think I am jinxed.

For my history of owning smartphones, every time it comes close to the end of the two year contract with my mobile service provider. This time round, it happened to my Huawei P9.

All of a sudden, the LCD screen sort of decolourised. I thought it was a temporary issue but the decolourisation lasted for a few hours. Then the nightmare began.

The touchscreen couldn't be touched. This made it the smartphone a brick.

I thought the Huawei P9 only had one year of warrant. With my contract ending in mid-year, I thought I would have to wait it out till the contract ended and allowed me to buy a new phone under a contract.

Luckily, a friend reminded me that the phone came with a 2 year warranty.

So I decided to go to the Huawei service center, right smack in the center of the city, to see if my phone is under warranty and if Huawei would honour their 2 year warranty.

Thankfully, Huawei isn't as popular as the Samsungs or Apples, and the …