Rex writes:

I really don’t understand why it’s difficult for media critics (much, less, tech-bloggers and even magazine people, themselves) to understand the concept of “brand extension.” For decades, especially in the business-to-businesss media field, but really across the board, media companies that own long-established magazine properties have used the brands of those magazines to launch (or license) products that are not magazines. Media critics understand this concept when the product is not online. For example, when a magazine licenses its brand for men’s hair dye, you’d never hear a media critic describe it as “a magazine on a head.” I don’t think media critics find it difficult to understand that, say, Macworld Expo, is not “a magazine in a conference center” despite it having the same name as a magazine published by the same parent company.

So why is it difficult for a media critic to understand that when a media company uses a brand of a magazine shuttered five years ago for a product that is clearly not a magazine or even uses magazine metaphors, that it’s NOT “a Magazine”?

More at his place.  

(If you see something that you think is media-related or that is just damned skippy and think it needs to be spotlighted, send a heads-up email to tips at musiccitybloggers dot com. Sometimes your eyes are better than ours and we don’t want to miss it.)