In the publishing industry, repurposing content is common practice.  For example, a popular article that ran in the Style section of the print edition of The New York Times daily newspaper could be published again in the newspaper’s fashionable T Magazine.  I’ve seen this several times and never took issue with it because the articles I’ve read, and in some instances reread, are always properly labeled as repurposed content.  

This week the publishers of Martha Stewart Living made a major misstep by repurposing content and not alerting its loyal readers.  Mary Findley, an avid follower of Living, told Tanzina Vega, a media reporter with The New York Times, about how she stumbled upon this snafu when perusing the special 2011 Halloween issue of Martha Stewart’s magazine.  Ms. Findley had a déjà vu moment when she came across a photo of a chocolate cake titled Macabre Manse.  It turns out that this same photo and recipe were featured in the October 2008 issue of the magazine.  And apparently this wasn’t the only repurposed content in the 2011 Halloween issue, which retails for about $7 at newsstands. 

According to The New York Times article, a spokesperson for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia said the company stood by its work and how it was delivered to readers. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia publishes two to four special issues a year, each of which carries about 60 percent original material and 40 percent repurposed material.  However, The New York Times reported that the 2011 Halloween issue included about 70 percent of original content.

When additional media pundits and bloggers picked up the story, it prompted an additional response from the company and ultimately persuaded Martha herself to place a call to Ms. Findley.

During these uncertain economic times when many magazine titles are struggling to stay afloat, a snafu like this could prove costly.  It could cause advertisers to spend their ad dollars elsewhere.  And informed consumers may be reluctant to buy special issues.  Not to mention the potential damage to the Martha Stewart brand.  Isn’t the brand all about fresh new ideas? 

The statement issued by the Omnimedia leads me to believe that they don’t plan to change their practices. As a result, I’ll save my money at the newsstand for publications that are publishing original content, or those that are at least being upfront about articles that have appeared elsewhere.  How do you feel about media outlets that repurpose content? 

I decided to subscribe to GOOD a couple of months ago.  In addition to exploring a host of intriguing subjects, the publication offers a wealth of information in a very accessible manner.  For example, a full-page graphic depiction outlines which states have banned smoking in the workplace vs. restaurants vs. bars.  It also shows which states have the highest percentage of smokers.  I noticed while in Starbucks last week that they’ve published a series of GOOD sheets for the coffee-drinking crowd.  Each sheet tackles a different issue.  The one I picked up explained how our economy works — from the NASDAQ and NYSE to GDP and the National Deficit — and the various dimensions of the current financial crisis.  GOOD recently changed its url to drop the word magazine.  This better reflects all they do: events, a blog, videos, etc.  Critics have questioned the sustainability of this new title and characterized it as the expensive hobby of the son of a mogul.  All I know is this current issue seems to have more advertisers than many publications I read.  And we keep hearing how people are more inclined to give a damn these days.  Time will tell, but this could be the start of something good.