The year-to-date numbers for business and financial magazines are not good; in fact, they’re downright troubling for a category that many once considered an indicator of the general health consumer magazines. Through second quarter, the most recent numbers released by the Publishers Information Bureau, ad pages for the nine business magazines tracked by Media Life were off 10.3 percent from last year, from 6,231.83 pages to 5,591.93. What’s more, revenue was off 3.3 percent, from $601,050,786 to $580,978,255 (see chart below). Only two magazines in the category are showing ad-page growth, Fast Company and Inc. Business Week is down 12.6 percent, Fortune is off 17.5 percent, and Business 2.0 has slumped 34.1 percent, leading to rumors of a shutdown. The category could certainly use a jolt, which perhaps explains the huge amount of attention given to recent launch of Portfolio and its promising number of ad pages. Steve Greenberger, executive vice president and media director at SLG Advertising in Greenwich, Conn., talks to Media Life about what's ailing the category, why Inc. and Fast Company’s gains may be fleeting, and his early thoughts on Portfolio.

 
Do you see the business titles rebounding in the second half of the year? Why or why not?
 
I was looking at the ad classifications of financial, insurance and real estate through June of ’07. This whole area, which the business category of publications count on, is down 5 percent. The technology field is down 18 percent.

So if they’re down, and they've got to go after everything else, which falls into auto, public transportation, hotels and resources. And even those are down 3 percent year-to-year.

So all the areas that the business publications would hoist their flag around are in a bad way. And it's a chore to suddenly try to reach beyond these mainstays to grab something like, say, apparel advertising, which actually also happens to be down.

For a long while the general business publications were maintaining very strong advertising levels by going after the advertisers who had been going into the niche trade publications. They sort of tapped that out about two years ago.

In the meantime, the trade publications really moved forward with their internet offerings, so now they staying flat in terms of advertising, instead of heading into the red. But that leaves the general business publications with nothing else to go after. 
 

Many of the declines in the category are for older, more established titles like Business Week and Fortune. What's causing this decline?
 
You see Business Week taking a hit in the second quarter of about 20 percent, But I don't know about the newer publications. For example, Smart Money is off 20 percent, but Fast Company’s actually up 8 percent.

The question is whether the newer publications, which are written for a younger person, can manage to stay ahead versus the more established publications. If so, it will be because they are able to broadened their ad categories to include more computer software and hardware.
 

Meanwhile, Inc. and Fast Company are going up after years of struggle. Why are they finally finding their footing?
 
It’s got to be the tech area. It’s got to be that advertisers are thinking the decisions for general product purchases may be happening at a younger level at the companies they need to reach.

But Inc. and Fast Company, which went through some pretty bad times, could well see those initial increases fade unless they keep up their marketing.

Keep in mind, too, that you’re talking about 112 ad pages for Fast Company last year versus 120 now. Business Week is 600 pages versus 700 pages, so you can’t look at just the percentages.

I would say if it were at the scale of Business Week, Fast Company would be hurting too. The key seems to be integrating your online properties with your magazines, which is something Forbes has been doing well.
 

There's been a lot of speculation lately over the future of Business 2.0 magazine. Will it survive? What was its biggest downfall?
 
Even at a 40 percent dropoff in the second quarter, I still have hopes for that magazine. I’ve thought the editorial is strong. But they need to pump up the marketing. They have to raise awareness levels.

It used to be very top-of-mind, but they’ve kind of quieted down to a hum. They really need to start chomping at the bit to get the message out. It looks like it’s in trouble, but I really feel strongly that's capable of being corrected. They’ve just go to get to it.
 

Portfolio has also inspired a great deal of attention and speculation. What has its impact been on the category? Is it performing where media buyers had hoped it would?
 
I think it’s neither positively nor negatively affecting the category.

I think it’s written for the person and their life as a business person, as opposed to just reporting on business. So I’m not quite sure if it’s found its niche in the marketplace, which is business-lifestyle.

I think whatever was going to happen to business magazine ad pages would have happened with or without Portfolio.
 

What do you make of the editorial turmoil at Portfolio. It is the usual growing pains or the sign of future problems?
 
There have been some shifts, but the bottom line is that it’s been an evolving product for a very long time. If there were kinks, I would have assumed they’d gotten them out already. There was a lot of testing and placing it under the magnifying glass. It just proves the best-laid plans are often in the hands of God.

It hasn’t been heavily on my radar screen. But the publisher, David Cary, is a good guy, and he really knows what he’s doing.