[Exponent]

OK, I've been a regular visitor to maccentral.com for about a decade or so....
...and today I noticed that it is "maccentral" no longer! No name reference to it at all!
When in the blazes did this happen! Has anyone notified Stan Flack his creation is no longer?
Sign me "Sad Mac Nostalgic",
Exponent

[Jason Snell]

Actually, it's still tucked away (in text) on our news stories. But this has happened over a period of years -- MacCentral is Macworld. Macworld is MacCentral. The MacCentral name is fading away, but you'll also notice that the Macworld.com home page is now essentially the old MacCentral page. It's a mixture. And Jim Dalrymple and Peter Cohen aren't going anywhere.
If someone hasn't told Stan Flack yet, I'm sure they will any minute now.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

If someone hasn't told Stan Flack yet, I'm sure they will any minute now.

---

Clever, Jason, clever /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

And Jim Dalrymple and Peter Cohen aren't going anywhere.

---

That sounds like a threat. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Philip Michaels]

Quote:

---

And Jim Dalrymple and Peter Cohen aren't going anywhere.

---

Not until their families meet our ransom demands, at any rate.

[Exponent]

Well, it is your name to do with what you see fit - but in my opinion it's a waste of a valuable, recognizable brand name that took years to build up.
For me, a Lisa-era experienced Mac user (heh, not "MacUser"....), the word "MacCentral" brings to mind "current, up to the minute Mac news, albeit sometimes rehashed press releases", whereas to be honest, "MacWorld" brings to mind "info I already know, rehashed, non-entertaining commentary, but useful tips in the back, and sometimes a deep look at a Mac-relevant technology". To summarize, 'MacCentral' = fast & nimble; 'MacWorld' = slow & lumbering.
Don't take that personally, as I know the same guys that write for the magazine write for the website. And I think the MacWorld team did a great job of toning down the "Mary Sunshine" attitude MacCentral used to exhibit - I now trust its journalism a lot more than I used to.
I guess it's just the nature of web vs. print. It takes a really in-depth article to get me to pick up a MacWorld off the newsstand these days (besides the great tips in the back).
I guess you can work on giving the MacWorld name the qualities I attribute to the MacCentral name, and that's probably best for the MacWorld brand. But I think the old, two-brand system worked well, too.
Long live MacCentral!

[Jason Snell]

One could argue that by integrating what MacCentral does into Macworld.com, we are attempting to transform the meaning of "Macworld". That said, it was counterproductive for us to be MacCentral on the web and Macworld in print. Macworld is by far the better-known brand name, because of both the magazine and the trade show; if we were going to pick one (and we were), Macworld was the one to pick.
If Macworld means slow, lumbering magazine to you, well, it's our challenge to change your way of thinking. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Exponent]

Quote:

---

If Macworld means slow, lumbering magazine to you, well, it's our challenge to change your way of thinking.

---

That's a great way of thinking about it, and that's the way I meant my comments above. Thanks.
"Slow and lumbering" may have been a bit harsh - I know you guys really try to (and do) rush news on the latest Apple releases to the print magazine as fast as possible. It's just that for news, electrons are way, way faster than ink.
Just as customer feedback, the kind of magazine that I'd pick up in print is something like "MacTech", or the ultimate benchmark, 80's era BYTE. There's just something about being able to lean back, and hold in your hand old-school paper and ink when it comes to studying and contemplating a subject - as opposed to getting info ASAP but ugly when you want to be informed about news.
I guess what I'm saying is that the ultimate MacWorld (print mag) for me would be one that could be described as "slower (than the web) but substantial". Work with your cousins at MacTech! Or maybe more articles from the old Mac team at BYTE (Tom Yeager et. al.) - man do I miss BYTE! That kind of thing would switch my attitude towards buying MacWorld from "well, let's see what's in this one" to "foregone conclusion".
Just my $0.02. I'll stop blathering now, as this has turned into a procrastination excercise from debugging my project..... Thanks for listening.

[Jason Snell]

Quote:

---

"Slow and lumbering" may have been a bit harsh - I know you guys really try to (and do) rush news on the latest Apple releases to the print magazine as fast as possible. It's just that for news, electrons are way, way faster than ink.

---

Right.. this is why we have a web site. And why we do breaking news, blogs, and huge volumes of stuff online. More than we do in print, by far. I think it's actually a little unfair to call us "you guys" and mean the magazine and not the web site. We put as much effort into the web site as we do into the magazine. Maybe more, in fact. But again, that's an attitude we just have to keep working to change.

Quote:

---

I guess what I'm saying is that the ultimate MacWorld (print mag) for me would be one that could be described as "slower (than the web) but substantial". Work with your cousins at MacTech!

---

The thing about print is that it really serves a broad audience. MacTech is very small for a reason. Macworld reaches 350,000 subscribers -- I believe that if we were publishing stuff like MacTech we'd be lucky to reach 35,000...
-jason

[jmincey]

Jason, in light of the rationale you offer above regarding branding and naming, does this mean we will soon be seeing a "Macworld Hints" in the future? Or how about a "Macworld Playlist Mag"?
This idea of prepending a company name to the product name seems to prevail more in the computer technology industry than anywhere else. Microsoft is probably the most egregious offender, but there are many. Even the venerable Photoshop must now be "Adobe Photoshop."
If other industries were to follow this model, we would have product names of "Coke Coke" and "Coke Sprite" (since both Coke and Sprite are trademarks of the Coke Bottling Company). We would have "General Mills Cheerios" and "General Mills Total" and not just "Cheerios" and "Total."
Since IDG owns Macworld, and since as a practical matter you are known as "Macworld" and not as "IDG Macworld," why could not Macworld itself have its own brands -- as in fact you now do with Mac OS X Hints?
If you held a gun to my head today, I would be inclined to agree that the features and mission previously associated with MacCentral are best folded into the Macworld brand and product name, (and no doubt this news is a load off your mind), but as a general principle, are you on a mission to use Macworld universally or can you see a place for other product names even if they are owned and operated by Macworld?
It's interesting that you speak of a consolidation of names at the very time you are more aggressively reviving the MacUser brand for a blogging site. Why not instead "Macworld Blogs"? (For my part, I like the "MacUser" name; I'm just trying to understand your criteria in determining when to use a different name and when not to do so.)
By the way, MacUser should have the option of moderated guest columns from time to time -- even as it develops a set group of proven writers and bloggers.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

By the way, MacUser should have the option of moderated guest columns from time to time -- even as it develops a set group of proven writers and bloggers.

---

Dan and I have discussed that and a host of other ideas. We're certainly not going to let bitrot destroy it. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jason Snell]

Sometimes brands make sense to be separate; other times they don't. MacCentral and Macworld tread the same ground; we want there to be one brand there, and Macworld's it.
We launched MacUser with a different name because it's different from Macworld in just about every way. So there you go. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Your post makes lots of suggestions that might be accurate if you were taking a very simplistic, black-and-white view of things. (Not like you at all, Jeff.) There are lots of nuances, lots of differences between different brands. Yes, making Coke Sprite would be silly. But should Diet Coke be called Diet Jimmy instead, just because it's not regular Coke?
As for whether the Macworld brand should just absorb all the other names we own, that's a big debate. Past management here has held some particular views; current management may hold different views. Different people have different takes on things. It remains to be seen whether Playlist, for instance, will become more a part of Macworld or less, more a brand that's separate or less.

[jmincey]

Thanks, Jason, for the comments. I was just curious as to the thinking behind Macworld branding and product names.

[MacGizmo]

What's a magazine? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif