1 Comment

Summary:

Not to beat up on Fast Company when they are down, but John Byrne is totally talking smack about Business 2.0. Byrne called us “ugly” and the Frankenstein monster of business magazines, “composed of the body parts” of two business magazines (and the subscription list of […]

Not to beat up on Fast Company when they are down, but John Byrne is totally talking smack about Business 2.0. Byrne called us “ugly” and the Frankenstein monster of business magazines, “composed of the body parts” of two business magazines (and the subscription list of at least three others). Look at these covers and figure out who’s ugly! Whatever it is, it is working. Letting the numbers speak for themselves, as per Mediapost, “… during the first half of 2004, during which the magazine’s ad pages plummeted at high velocity, dropping 28 percent from the first half of 2003.” In comparison, for first half of 2004, ad pages are up for Business 2.0. SF Chronicle points out that during first four months of 2004, “Business 2.0′s ad revenue grew 18.8 percent, to $9.4 million.” In 2003, FC saw 28% decline in revenues, B20 saw an uptick of 7%. Bigger post on Business 2.0 blog (Invisible Company) Here is what Wall Street Journal has to say about them; of course the Folio bitch slapping and lastly, the readers over at Brand Autopsy and their comments say it all.

  1. Hey, no fair. The last few FC issues had nice covers (Jeff Bezos, Starbucks, JetBlue). Not like it matters what’s on the cover; as you say, if Biz2.0 is rolling in the dough, who cares?

    But you know what’s ugly? Business 2.0 makes me register to view their archives. FastCompany opens their archives to all. Who gets the mindshare, I wonder?

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post