\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/GettyImages-871426534-e1717601052602.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
The pages of Rolling Stone<\/em>, the legendary music magazine kickstarted by Jann Wenner when he was a hippie student, have chronicled rock stars<\/a>, searing political<\/a> commentaries<\/a>, and iconic photography<\/a> since its inception in the late 1960s. From an 11-year-old Michael Jackson in 1971 to a now-legendary cover photo of<\/a> a naked John Lennon wrapped around Yoko Ono, shot just hours before the star was shot and killed<\/a>, the magazine has been there for the major cultural moments of the 20th century.<\/p>\n But the counterculture icon is now trying to adapt to a radically different world than the one in which it was founded\u2014and making some longtime fans mad in the process.<\/p>\n The magazine, which Wenner and local journalist Ralph J. Gleason of the San Francisco Chronicle <\/em>started on a wild hair<\/a>, offered a sweet deal in the 2000s<\/a> as it tried to stay competitive with a growing internet\u2014a lifetime subscription<\/a> to the print magazine for just $99. But that\u2019s just been changed, too.\u00a0<\/p>\n In early May, lifetime subscribers received a letter<\/a> from David Roberson, the magazine\u2019s senior vice president of subscriptions, that states, \u201cwe are transitioning the delivery of Rolling Stone\u2019s lifetime subscribers to a digital format. Your final printed copy will be the June 2024 issue.\u201d While the magazine will continue printing physical editions of the magazine, current subscribers, including those who purchased the $99-for-life deal, will now receive digital copies unless they explicitly choose a print subscription, which costs $60 per year.\u00a0<\/p>\n The electronic edition, the letter states, is \u201can exact replica of the magazine you can read on your computer, tablet, or phone,\u201d and subscribers will receive reminder emails each time a new issue is published. They will also be able to access a library of issues from the past five years.\u00a0<\/p>\n Penske Media Corporation<\/a>, which owns Rolling Stone<\/em> along with Variety<\/em>, Deadline.com, and other<\/a> brands<\/a>, did not respond to Fortune\u2019s<\/em> request for comment on lifetime subscribers\u2019 options, or on whether the move signifies any broader changes in its magazine distribution\u2014but these are questions on many readers\u2019 minds.<\/p>\n On one Reddit forum<\/a>, hundreds of users vented about the letter and the magazine\u2019s switch to digital, many bemoaning the changed terms of the deal. The offer to access a digital catalog that dates back just five years\u2014when many subscribers still have physical editions from past decades\u2014added insult to injury.<\/p>\n \u201cRight now I can read 25 years worth of back catalogue,\u201d one user wrote. \u201cI\u2019d like to continue doing that with physical copies of the magazine.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Another user wrote, \u201cMy mother saved them all. I have every copy from about 1990-1994.\u201d Another said, \u201cI\u2019d be requesting a refund, since they want to change the terms of the sale afterwards. Companies need to stop doing this.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But while infuriating for subscribers, the move might not constitute a breach of contract. The magazine\u2019s ownership changed in 2017, and without a clause that requires future owners to abide by past terms the lifetime subscribers bought into, \u201cthe new owner is probably not bound by the lifetime subscription deal, hence, no breach,\u201d Alexandra Roberts, a professor of media and law at Northeastern University School of Law, told Slate<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no reason to think this wasn\u2019t a valid contract when it was struck,\u201d she told the publication, but added that the magazine may be planning what\u2019s known as an \u2018efficient breach,\u2019 or a scenario in which it\u2019s cheaper to pay the damages of a breached contract rather than continue to operate less profitably under its terms.\u00a0<\/p>\n Of course, publishing a print magazine is much less profitable<\/a> now than it was decades ago, thanks to the declining profits from advertising and increased costs of paper and mailing<\/a>. But the turn away from print to digital also highlights the increasingly fleeting nature of media consumption in the 21st century. Just as physical magazines and books have been largely replaced by digital copies, the rise of streaming services for music, movies, and shows has supplanted owning physical records or videos.<\/p>\n Spotify<\/a>, the world\u2019s largest music streaming service, has radically changed how people access music since its inception in 2006, chartering the path from more physically-rooted modes of listening, like radios and records, to a digital library of millions of tracks, podcasts, and audiobooks that can be listened to instantly with a just few taps of your finger.\u00a0<\/p>\n Today, the platform has more than 615 million users<\/a>, including 239 million paid subscribers, in more than 180 markets around the globe\u2014but those users are subject to the whims of Spotify\u2019s catalog, and their access to music varies depending on what artists the platform may have deals with, or not<\/a>. And the model is far less profitable for artists who use the platform to stream their work\u2014Spotify estimates the average song generates between $0.006 and $0.008 per stream<\/a> in royalties to artists.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Beyond<\/a> the price tag, the media industry faces persistent challenges. More than 17,436 media jobs<\/a> were lost in 2023, which is the highest number of layoffs (excluding layoffs the height of the pandemic) since 2009, according to data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a global research firm that tracks layoffs. As of the end of January this year, there were already 528 new layoffs<\/a> in the media sector.\u00a0<\/p>\n Separate from the overall decline of the industry, Rolling Stone<\/em> has also made some expensive mistakes. Perhaps the most notable mishap includes publishing a now-discredited account<\/a> of a University of Viriginia student\u2019s alleged gang rape<\/a>, which paved the way to a costly libel battle<\/a> in 2014. That was one of the drivers of Wenner\u2019s sale of Wenner Media<\/a>, which encompassed Rolling Stone<\/em>, <\/em>Us Weekly<\/em><\/a> and Men\u2019s Journal<\/em><\/a>, to Penske Media Corporation in two trachens, in 2017<\/a> and in 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n In an interview<\/a> with the New York Times<\/em>, Wenner said he wanted to find a buyer that understands the magazine\u2019s \u201crole in the history of our times, socially and politically and culturally.\u201d That role apparently does not include placating longtime, but likely unprofitable, subscribers.<\/p>\n Lifetime subscribers will receive their final print issue this month, according to the letter sent by Rolling Stone<\/em>, which did not include instructions on how to subscribe to the print version of the magazine. An annual subscription<\/a> to a physical copy costs $60 per year and a subscription to both print and digital versions cost $120 per year, which is more than the one-time $99 payment lifetime subscribers paid.\u00a0<\/p>\n Beyond the price tag, subscribers insist the physical copies have value\u2014and that they\u2019re now being swindled out of their deal.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI got the lifetime subscription in 2004. I have every issue in my basement,\u201d one Reddit user wrote. Another stated, \u201cthe physical issues have value and that is what I paid for 25 years ago,\u201d adding they\u2019re \u201cglad to hear that other people are similarly enraged.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\u2018My mother saved them all\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n