How to get back in sync with your association - Audubon magazine's restructuring to bring it in line with National Audubon Society's ideals

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Sept 15, 1994 by Michael W. Robbins

Concerns about the environment have moved from being a minority preoccupation to a mainstream political issue, and The National Audubon Society wanted Audubon to champion environmental activism. But the vision of the long-time editor emphasized conservation. A 1990 study showed that although Audubon is the organization's key image-driver, the magazine was staid and not in alignment with the society's objectives. In March 1991, the editor was dismissed. Michael W. Robbins was hired in July 1991 to restructure the staff and reposition and redesign the half-million circulation bimonthly. Two years later, a study showed that 42 percent of the members strongly approved, and 38 percent approved, of Audubon's changes. Ad pages rose 15.7 percent in 1993 versus '92. Here, Robbins explains how he did it.

A subscription to Audubon is unquestionably perceived as a major benefit of membership in the National Audubon Society. But that's not the only reason people join. There's the opportunity to support the society's advocacy role in the protection of wildlife and the environment, as well as the access to field trips and other activities. But there came a time when the society found that, although circulation was steady, actual readership was declining. That change was essential was the message from the society when I was hired - after 17 interviews - to replace the interim editor.

There had been little turnover at the magazine for two decades, and few staffers were amenable to a new direction. I quickly organized a new staff; and we made a new round of assignments that offered more diversity in voice and subject and paid more attention to the human side of the mankind/environment equation. We did more reporting, broadened the definition of what is appropriate for an Audubon article, and made strong efforts to do timely stories, despite our bimonthly schedule. In that first year, we introduced more than 50 new writers, including many women contributors, whose presence had been notably lacking in an organization where readership and members split virtually 50:50 male:female.

Of course, we still need to accommodate the quiet bird-watching stories versus the toxic-waste- dump stories. Breadth is desirable to keep current support while attracting younger members.

The next order of business was a redesign. The old design was too low-key and contributed to a sense that Audubon was not reader-friendly. It was difficult to tell what you were getting into when you looked at the magazine. There weren't many clues about what was happening in the pages. The architecture was not appropriate for the kinds of articles and departments we meant to carry.

The redesign served to alert the advertising community to our new direction. The perception had spread that Audubon had not changed in so long that it wasn't a very good buy, despite good demographics and strong circulation. Another small but important signal to advertisers was changing our main listing in SRDS from Nature & Ecology to General Editorial.

But just as important, the new design was meant to increase readership by signaling readers about the editorial changes. I feel very strongly that you've got to make your magazine accessible: Make it clear on the cover what's in the magazine, show readers exactly what they're getting into when they're shopping through the table of contents, and give them a clue once they arrive at an article what it's about so they can get into it, and read it.

The cover treatment changed dramatically, although the signature around photo was retained. First of all, we linked the cover to the subject matter inside, whereas previously it was a "beauties of nature" spot. The entirely too quiet and reclusive logo that disappeared on the newsstand was altered so that I could do bleed photos. We went to photographs with a journalistic spin that involved people as much as nature. We featured much more prominent coverlines. We also used the table of contents as a billboard for bylines and moved the contributors' mini bio page from the back to die front of the book to proclaim the quality of our contributors.

Interestingly, although we broke with the established style and philosophy of the magazine right away, we got very little m die way of reader response until we changed die look. Evidently, stylistic and substantive changes to the words - text, headlines, decks - are not particularly obvious to readers. Initially, we received negative letters because, I think, change is a process that makes many people profoundly uncomfortable. I don't think change is bad, because - in magazine terms - it carries the promise of improvement, of reaching and influencing a wider audience, of gaining a new level of attention among advertisers and readers. And the society and the magazine still have a lot of credibility and loyalty.

But balancing the interests of a mainstream magazine and the membership requires hard work. It's about serving more than one master. Of course, sometimes there is pressure to be a mouthpiece, a cheerleader. What we do isn't cheerleading. What we do is journalism. Reporters are sent to get the story and write compelling editorial. The subjects are, naturally, those that Audubon cares about, and if the society happens to be doing something in that arena, it becomes part of the mix. There is a place for strictly association news. We have a department called "About Audubon" devoted to the society. The president's column is always about the society; and my column often touches on die society. But the long-run strength is the independence and credibility of the magazine. You serve the reader and your society by being an independent and authoritative voice.