When Print Magazines Roamed the Earth

By Jonathan Fosdick • Apr 29th, 2008 • Category: Artists in Residence

Just as a preface, until Soul-Audio’s streaming audio functionality is up and running (which should be soon), instead of regaling you with talk of classic CCM artists and songs with no auditory accompaniment, I will instead pen a few commentaries that will hopefully appeal to this blog’s intended audience.

When I heard the news, I was quite shocked. Maybe I shouldn’t have been, but it was still a rather large splash of cold water in my face. In my mind, it was like Rolling Stone shutting their doors, National Geographic hanging it up, Time running out… CCM Magazine, no longer in print… Just typing out the words brings a small tear to my eye even now, having supposedly already come to terms with the whole situation, receiving the magazine’s final copy just in the last couple weeks. It just seems so hard to believe.

Now, I’ve been on the CCM bandwagon for a long time, to the point where they were almost calling it a “wagon train.” I still remember clearly the time when everyone was pulling out the card of prejudice against Christian musicians, when we all were shaking our heads disbelieving that MTV could reject a video from DeGarmo & Key for being too violent of all things. Back then CCM Magazine was an oasis of respect, a place where we could all pat each other on the back for finding the hidden treasure that was Contemporary Christian Music. Oh how times change.

While I have no inside information as to the demise of the print publication, I thought that it might be interesting to speculate a little bit about the factors involved.

Probably the most obvious reason would be the rise of the internet. The internet has hit a large majority of print magazines very hard. Why pay for a subscription to a magazine with around 3 month old news and information when you can get it all free on the information superhighway? In the same way, advertisers see the same thing, observing that there are freely viewable websites with cheaper ad costs and a larger audience. Unfortunately, CCM Magazine was likely hit even harder by the effects of the internet than most any other publication out there. Before the internet there was little competition for information about Christian music. Sure there were smaller competing magazines, but there were no other large publications that really cared about what was happening. CCM Magazine provided the latest news, the exclusive interviews, and the timeliest reviews. All of the other magazines out there had their major competitors. CCM Magazine was *the* resource. How much more difficult must it have been to find that your news was no longer exclusive, your interviews with artists available months after many others were published, your reviews beaten out the door consistently, and your advertisers abandoning you for a cheaper alternative? What could the editors do to counteract such a circumstance? Which leads to the next factor…

It’s a bit of a speculation on my part, but I can’t help believing that the change in direction that the magazine recently took could have backfired. The “Christ Community Music” direction that the magazine took was, in a way, a huge departure. In all truth, the concept was wonderful, focusing on mainstream artists and how their Christian faith influences their works; however, it was probably a great idea for a new magazine not for one that had such a longstanding reputation for focusing on the Christian music industry. It’s not difficult to imagine that some longtime subscribers might have been upset at the change.

Along the same lines as the magazine’s recent concept change, even before that point, the magazine had been expanding its areas of coverage beyond Christian music and into television and movies, again providing content that didn’t exactly meet the expectations of the existing readers. What’s wonderfully ironic about this situation is that CCM Magazine did nearly the exact same thing back in the early 80’s, calling themselves CCM (Contemporary Christian Magazine), covering all sorts of topics applicable to the Christian reader in addition to music. Even then, the change didn’t last long before the magazine returned to its previous format of focusing solely on music.

Perhaps the biggest reason that CCM Magazine folded as a print publication (and first changed its format before doing so), and keep in mind that this is purely my opinion here, is how the Christian music industry has changed in recent years both in how it is run professionally and how it is perceived both by the music listeners and the Christian performing artists. In the past, the Christian music industry was criticized most for supposedly providing an inferior product musically and technically (I’ll never forget a roundtable discussion that occurred on VH1 back in the early 90’s talked about how dull Christian music was, specifically referencing Steven Curtis Chapman, with the exception of getting his name completely wrong – oh how I wish that I could recall what exactly they called him – I just remember laughing really hard). Today, the greatest criticism of the industry revolves around its treatment of the Christian message as a marketing gimmick and more or less requiring that artists give the listeners “what they want to hear,” in the form of “happy happy, joy joy” lyrics. If you can’t tell from the way I worded the previous sentence, I don’t exactly disagree with many people’s opinions about this issue. Regardless of my opinion, CCM Magazine was being associated with an industry that has been taking it on the chin for a while now, thus the change in concept, thus the potential backfire. I’ll save my full criticisms, opinions, and perspectives on the CCM industry for another column, but needless to say, CCM Magazine was in between a rock and a hard place with their close association with the industry (and even if the concept change could have been successful, the simple use of the CCM acronym, regardless of what it stood for, prevented the magazine from distancing itself enough for the new concept to catch on with a new audience).

Now, for all of the criticism that I’ve laid upon the publication in its demise, let me be honest in saying that I don’t necessarily have a solution that would have fixed all of the problems that were faced. If there was one thing that I would have liked to have seen tried though, it would be this. Though there have been the occasional exceptions through the years (the article on AIDS being one of my favorites), the general demeanor of the magazine has been one of promotion. It would have been great to see CCM Magazine turn the corner, ask the tough questions, publish the truly critical reviews, be a true journalistic magazine… Would this have saved the print publication from its ultimate demise? It’s hard to say, but it would have at least stayed true to its original theme while at the same time providing a concept that would have changed not only how the magazine was viewed but also how Christian music was perceived in general. How great would that have been?

So what do *you* think? Where did things go wrong? Did they at all? Will CCM Magazine be able to succeed as solely a website? Am I full of it? Let me know!

Tagged as: CCM Magazine, Classic CCM

↓ 3 comments

#1 Matt Conner on April 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I think you really nailed it on a couple of these and it’s hard to tell how CCM will turn out.

It’s funny you mentioned the name of the magazine being part of the demise, because in a way you have to admit that’s like telling Kleenex that it needs to change its name. CCM went from being a magazine’s identity to the shorthand for the entire industry. That’s a powerful moniker, but also a large target. Once an image was associated with that, it’s hard to leave the shadow it creates.

So I wonder if you’re onto something. If more and more artists are trying to distance themselves from CCM (not the magazine), then their audience will go with them. And then you have this magazine wanting to cover these artists named after (seemingly, even though it’s really the other way around) the very music they are wanting to disassociate from.

I can imagine there were cover subjects who said ‘no’ because they wouldn’t want their face/interview associated with the name of the industry (not necessarily the mag). And yet that association would only hurt the magazine.

#2 Christopher [at] lightvox on April 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

I think the biggest problem CCM faces in the online only format is competition with itself. If you look at all the Salem Media online properties they all have basically the same content rearranged.

In their building an online Christian media network they have split readership across their sites. Each site has its own specialty but CCM is the most confusing of them all. With CCM, it’s as if they are trying to cram the entire magazine into one page and it just makes it more confusing to the reader.

#3 Karissa on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 am

Well, I missed most of CCM’s big heyday, getting into the music only at the turn of the millennium. I can’t really compare how things were before to how they are now. But I do know that print journalism everywhere is pretty much in decline these days. The Internet is cheaper, faster, and more popular than old-fashioned newspapers and magazines. (Which is probably why Soul-Audio is not a print mag!)

Christopher’s got a good point - now that Salem owns a good percentage of CCM websites, what does that mean for their readership and quality of coverage? I’m not a big fan of media conglomeration, because it means that less diverse voices are being heard. That’s the last thing this industry needs right now.

Does it Resonate with you?

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

URL