« Back to Home Page

Sign up for the 3p daily dispatch:

GOOD Magazine Debuts

| Tuesday September 12th, 2006 | 1 Comment

I just got my copy of the innaugural issue of the much-anticipated GOOD Magazine. It’s really good and well worth the $20 annual subscription fee – which gets you six magazines, admision to various parties, and a donation to the charity of your choice. If you like TreeHugger, you’ll love GOOD – it’s almost like a print version of everyone’s favorite modern green lifestyle blog, but with a bit more in-depth articles and more of a social and political bend to it. And it’s on paper, which I kind of like since I can throw it in my bag and read elsewhere.
The magazine is printed on recycled paper. That said – I hereby issue a challenge for Pablo: Let’s compare the impact of GOOD Magazine being in a print version with an online equivalent, asuming the stated goal of 50,000 bi-monthly subscribers.

From Good’s table of contents:

GOOD is printed on ST Generation II, made with 30% post consumer waste, EcoLogo certified and manufactured using Biogas Energy, and New Leaf Reincarnation, made with 100% recycled fiber, 50% post consumer waste, and processed chlorine free. This issue saved the equivalent of 150 trees and lowered air emissions by 21,520 Lbs. … GOOD offsets 100% of our carbon emissions from publishing with clean energy from new renewable energy products.. via NativeEnergy.

Looks to me like GOOD has their bases pretty well covered. But how much less would their impact be if everyone read the mag online? assuming everyone already owned a computer to begin with? Or would there be any real difference at all?

▼▼▼      1 Comment     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://www.todbrilliant.com todbrilliant

    Great idea. However, be certain that Pablo includes the lifespan of a magazine, and the potential for it to read far more viewers over a period of months and years than the online equivalent. Granted, an online pub can be ‘passed around’ as well, but physical publications enjoy the advantage of more complete reading of total content, resulting in a higher true ‘read-through’ rate. Also, as ‘true cost’ is all the rage, the cost of macular degeneration caused by increased monitor time should be incorporated.
    Lastly, remember that GOOD was launched real word and online simulataneously, meaning that it creates a feedback loop which, ideally, boosts readership and reach of both versions, so a pure Print v. Web comparison doesn’t reflect this particular publishing venture’s impact accurately.