Business 2.0 - publishing 1.0 = 0
If there ever was a magazine that should have been primarily online and primarily a community, it was Business 2.0. But no, it’s dead now. And that’s a shame.
Why the hell it didn’t start online or transition to online is beyond me. Business 2.0 should not have been a product but a community; it could have been the magazine that shows how that’s done. It even had a community on Facebook eager to save it. But, sadly, this magazine was made by a 1.0 company that just didn’t understand how to think like a place instead of a thing.
This being a product of Time Inc., I suspect that politics also played a role. (That’s on my mind as I teach my CUNY course in entrepreneurial journalism and for the first class, I took the students through the saga of starting Entertainment Weekly.) Time Inc. refused to sell Business 2.0 to Mansueto Ventures, publisher of Fast Company and Inc., which are competitive. And Fortune, inside Time Inc., is also competitive. So out went the baby with the bathwater. Too bad.
Tags: magazines
September 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
[...] know who is to blame don’t you? The internet. Jarvis says it’s because the magazine was made by a “1.0 [...]
September 5th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Jeff,
I followed the CUNY link but there is still no info on the conference Oct 10th that you otherwise assume is known when you mention it.
Anyone else know a link?
Will
September 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
hi
the cuny link doesnt work for me
i would be happy to get another link for it
thanks
September 6th, 2007 at 1:23 am
[...] est toujours une triste nouvelle pour un journaliste, mais j’apprécie particulièrement le commentaire de Jeff Jarvis . Ça aurait dû être online et pas sur [...]
September 6th, 2007 at 8:35 am
i subscribed till 2009.
i don’t trust aol time warner anymore.
big freaking billion dollar company can’t send paper to half a million
people.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:54 am
[...] Jarvis shares some short but apt thoughts on B2.0’s demise. Key excerpt: Business 2.0 should not have been a product but a community; [...]
September 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Man, what a bummer. I had recently referenced a “fun to read” article from that magazine, but now it will cease publication after the October 2007 issue.
Business 2.0 was a good read, much more interesting than Fortune and highly relevant to today’s business. I wonder if Time will fold the mag into Fortune?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
This is truly a bummer…I LOVED Business 2.0 and looked forward to every issue. I have to agree with Jeff’s analysis, they totally 1.0′d it. Fast company would have been a great fit for them, too bad that wasn’t an option. I’m gonna miss it.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Jeff
I wonder if the (ugly to my taste) redesign of the magazine hurt it as well, at least its image.
I did like the stories though.
Has their demise got to do with being a monthly?
Serge
‘The French Guy from New Jersey’
Blog
http://www.sergetheconcierge.com
April 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Business 2.0 was a good read, much more interesting than Fortune and highly relevant to today’s business. I wonder if Time will fold the mag into Fortune?
April 21st, 2008 at 4:45 am
[...] Ähnlich sieht das auch Jeff Jarvis, der schrieb: [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 4:43 am
[...] est un non sens pour un magazine comme le rappelle Alexis qui nous a traduit l’opinion de Jeff Jarvis sur ce décès prématuré : ” Pourquoi diable [Business 2.0] n’a pas commencé ou [...]