Through the years, printing technology evolved, as did complementary tools of journalism, such as photography. The mid 19th century through the late 20th century saw a meteoric rise in magazines: in 1825, there were fewer than 100 magazines. By 1850 the number had swelled to 600, becoming a mass medium. In 2006, the industry reached its apex: over 31,000 titles and 369 million issues sold.

Magazines brought a truly new user experience to content consumption. Magazine covers were often statements in and of themselves, such as Franklin's famous cartoon. For example, Time Magazine began a practice in 1927 of choosing a "Person of the Year" on their cover. In 1930, this was Ghandi. Through the years, they tended to select world leaders, US presidents, and other individuals of national and even international prominence. Stalin and Hitler even made the cover. As did Churchill -- twice.

Why were magazines so successful in the pre-Web era? Unlike newspapers, which, for the most part, acted as information transceivers, the magazines -- which printed less frequently, typically weekly or monthly -- were simply not beholden to the news cycle. This allowed them to not only spend time on more reflective content areas -- such as lifestyle or historical analysis -- but it also gave them the time to craft a quality content consumption experience with design. Readers fell in love with brands like The New Yorker, The Economist, and National Geographic not for the content they created and curated, but for the way in which they presented it.

In 1982, Time made an interesting "Person of the Year" selection: "The Computer". In 2006, they chose "You", hinting at user-generated content sites on the Web, such as YouTube. In 2010, they chose Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg -- who perhaps symbolized more than anyone else the mainstreaming of the Web.

For many years, newspapers only used design in small doses. It's therefore no surprise to me that when a much more efficient information conduit came along -- the World Wide Web -- users were willing to let go of their print copies.

Magazines have weathered the storm better than newspapers because audiences still crave immersive, crafted, designed experiences.

It has become a self-evident platitude that "information is commoditized". But it seems clear to me that great design is not (and never will be). I believe news publishers are wisely coming to this realization, too. It's starting with small steps, such as modern site redesigns (see Mashable, MIT Technology Review, Harpers Magazine). But the bigger step -- the leap -- is breaking free of the idea of online content being limited to individual atoms of headlines, text, and lead photos.

The New York Times' recent "Snow Fall" project has resurrected this discussion of tailored, crafted content & design in the Web era.

The engrossing combination of multimedia and text (brilliantly analyzed by Poynter Institute's Jeff Sonderman) showcases magazine-era design in a web format. "The medium is the message" -- presentations rich in design can change the audience's perception of not only the underlying content, but the brand who crafted the experience.

As audiences shift into digital-first (and eventually, digital-only) content experiences, perhaps the industry needs to think about how it can combine great editorial judgment with great editorial design.