Although the titular term needs no more explanation, as in the Wikipedia, Video magazines are a series of online videos that follow the print magazine format in which the reader/viewer consumes an issue on a periodic basis.

I just watched a video series that in the opening it was introduced as a Magazine video. The series' release date was 1992.

So, the first question is what form is the correct one? (I think the first one, by the way) and the second question is why the second form is used, since I have seen other similar instances of this kind. Can this be related to an old-fashioned pattern of writing or the underlying reason is another thing?

  • 3
    Either's correct: it's a video that's a magazine, it's a magazine that's a video. It's going to come down to opinion, habit, and context. Generally, you put the more fundamental noun last and the format or type before: so I'd prefer "video magazine". But if you're a company that sells videos, you may refer to everything as a type of video ("magazine video", "feature film video", "compilation video").
    – Stuart F
    Commented Aug 8, 2023 at 8:55
  • There are a lot of similar questions about attributive and compound nouns, e.g. english.stackexchange.com/questions/480976/… english.stackexchange.com/questions/18999/… english.stackexchange.com/questions/87609/…
    – Stuart F
    Commented Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00
  • Google nGram has video magazine, almost nothing on magazine video. But it looks like it’s tending toward just video—the magazine part is dropping off.
    – Xanne
    Commented Aug 8, 2023 at 9:33
  • @StuartF, I can accept your first comment as the answer!
    – Eilia
    Commented Aug 8, 2023 at 15:44
  • 1
    To me, "video magazine" sounds like a magazine about videos, not a magazine in the form of videos. But maybe that's my age showing.
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 8, 2023 at 21:32

2 Answers 2


As noted above (in a comment from Stuart F), both versions are possible based on the normal semantics of attributive nouns: It could be considered a video that has characteristics of a magazine (thus "magazine video") or a magazine that has characteristics of a video (thus "video magazine"). However, the latter term is used far more often in the Google Books corpus:

enter image description here

(Adding an indefinite article in front of each term, to try to reduce spurious results, produces nothing for "magazine video".)

The chart shows a peak in the last quarter of the 20th century, when this format was popular. Major U.S. video magazines in that period included 60 Minutes, Inside Edition, 20/20, and Entertainment Tonight.


Isn't the first Question why either form should be doubted? (I, too, support the first…) Either way, where did those capitals come from?

Any difference is tiny yet broadly, a Video Magazine would be a magazine designed to be distributed on videotape while a Magazine Video would be a videotape whose contents happened to be a magazine.

However clearly correct the first form, why would that preclude the second being used, if only by mistake… and that frequently? Compare, for instance, 'momentarily' or 'mutually'.

As a strong clue, how might 'video magazine' or 'magazine video' stack up against older-fashioned 'audio…' or 'photo…'?

Don't 'audio/photo/magazine… video' clearly refer to elements used in the making of 'videos'

Don't 'video audio/photo/magazine…' as clearly refer to 'videos' using those elements in their making?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.