A Washington, DC, PR firm has done a study that finds that newspapers do better than magazines in terms of new fangled web functionality.
In many other core categories, such as video, podcasts, and comments on articles, magazines persistently under-perform compared to the websites of newspapers.
The firm studied various features it refers to as Web 2.0 features (kind of a stretch in some cases) that include RSS, forums, blogs, podcasting, video, bookmarking, article comments, tags and user registration policies.
But there's a catch (at least for newspapers)
... it is evident that newspapers use a larger number of Web tools in a more effective manner than magazines. However, the general strategy of newspaper websites, which aims to replicate the content provided in print editions, falls short of the strategies employed by online magazines, which are more tailored to people who read online news.
Magazine Web sites are more supplemental to their print titles than the strategy of newspapers of replicating their content online, the study says. (That's an effective Web 2.0 strategy?)
The full study is here.
I tend to think of blogs as the new magazines, the place to find sharp writing (present company excluded) and insightful analysis. I do use magazine Web sites (Forbes and Fast Company are two that I use and have subscribed to the print versions), but I rarely find myself at Time or Newsweek's Web presences. I dropped my PC Magazine subscription years ago.
I think the study misses the target when it says: "Due to differences in the inherent structure of the magazine and newspaper industry, the Internet appears to be less of a threat to magazines than it is to newspapers."
The business models of both are being effectively disrupted.