Edward Enninful Departing British Vogue as EIC, Promoted to New Global Role within Condé Nast

[Bernie Flood]

This is what you call a graceful exit. He was given a pseudo-exit under the guise of a "promotion" which we all know is nothing but a glorified part-time job.

I wonder if UK Vogue will suffer the same fate as Vogue Paris and Italia where the EIC role was abolished and replaced by a "Head of Editorial Content" post.

Also, I can't with all of these "Anna replacement" discussions. With all that's happening, how sure are we that there will even be a replacement and not another "Head"?

This "move" from the person who most of the people considered as the "successor" is a tell-tale sign of what's coming -- a glim future for the magazine that even the supposed "successor" wanted no part of.

The issue with Vogue/Conde Nast is they’re wasn’t prepared with the rise digital and internet revolution.
Conde could have foreseen this in the 90’s, but Vogue got so comfortable with their position as the leading fashion magazine (ads and circulation wise) on earth ‍♀️‍♀️‍♀️

 

[Bernie Flood]

I think what you say is interesting as I am feeling this too.
I'd love if you could expand on this a bit more: what do you think is gonna happen in the next 2/3 years fashion wise? and specifically for fashion publications?

I feel the news of Edward departing Vogue UK, aside from his specific circumstances, is in line of what is happening with the big glossy publications.
Fashion journalism is essentially dead - and even as a vehicle for beautiful imagery, magazines are struggling to compete and are sadly becoming irrelevant.
We can only expect (at least from Conde Nast) more homogenised blatant promotion pieces disguised as "content", with very little respect for each country's individual taste and sensibilities.

I feel that Conde Nast are now requiring every entertainment studios payment so they can feature their upcoming female lead/s on every Vogue or Vanity Fair issues.

Plus The Barbie issue for instance is an obvious “paid ad”

 

[Bernie Flood]

I think what you say is interesting as I am feeling this too.
I'd love if you could expand on this a bit more: what do you think is gonna happen in the next 2/3 years fashion wise? and specifically for fashion publications?

I feel the news of Edward departing Vogue UK, aside from his specific circumstances, is in line of what is happening with the big glossy publications.
Fashion journalism is essentially dead - and even as a vehicle for beautiful imagery, magazines are struggling to compete and are sadly becoming irrelevant.
We can only expect (at least from Conde Nast) more homogenised blatant promotion pieces disguised as "content", with very little respect for each country's individual taste and sensibilities.

Vogue is also asking designers to review their upcoming collections. How the mighty has fallen!

 

[GivenchyAddict]

Fashion for fashion's sake is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and we have seen this several times.

Celebrities, athletes, businessmen, etc. all use fashion to promote their own business or image.

There is no real appreciation and respect for fashion anymore. That is why fashion magazines are quite useless and that is why Edward's Vogue is what it is and why Anna's Vogue has changed so much and so many times.

The industry is making money like never before because our society is so focused on appearances and branding in general. More than fashion, you have communities/groups.

People just want to pretend to belong to a certain aesthetic/lifestyle. I have said this many times on TFS, but the only magazines that are successful in terms of sales with fashion are the supplements (HTSI, WSJ, M le Monde, T, D La Repubblica and so on) :

- They have a wide range of advertisers: menswear, womenswear, HJ, watches, beauty, interior design;
- Can work with a small team and bring together different contributors;
- They don't have to create their own audience, as they use those of the already established publications with which they are associated (NYT, Le Monde, Financial Times...).
- This very specific audience is made up of people who have enormous purchasing power and who consult the supplements to know what to buy.
- They can adapt their business model very quickly because they are not dependent on one type of advertiser.

Back to Edward, he tried to dethrone Anna and failed. Now he is moving on to his next plan. Very clever. For me, he is a winner: a pompous title at Condé Nast, a tenure that people talk about a lot, a biography that sells well and a crazy network. The projects he will have will certainly be bigger than just fashion and styling.

 

[carbon-made]

I think you're spot on GivenchyAddict.
Fashion on its own is becoming irrelevant, it only works if in context or as a branding tool. The examples you pointed out are a proof of that.

 

[Bernie Flood]

Fashion for fashion's sake is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and we have seen this several times.

Celebrities, athletes, businessmen, etc. all use fashion to promote their own business or image.

There is no real appreciation and respect for fashion anymore. That is why fashion magazines are quite useless and that is why Edward's Vogue is what it is and why Anna's Vogue has changed so much and so many times.

The industry is making money like never before because our society is so focused on appearances and branding in general. More than fashion, you have communities/groups.

People just want to pretend to belong to a certain aesthetic/lifestyle. I have said this many times on TFS, but the only magazines that are successful in terms of sales with fashion are the supplements (HTSI, WSJ, M le Monde, T, D La Repubblica and so on) :

- They have a wide range of advertisers: menswear, womenswear, HJ, watches, beauty, interior design;
- Can work with a small team and bring together different contributors;
- They don't have to create their own audience, as they use those of the already established publications with which they are associated (NYT, Le Monde, Financial Times...).
- This very specific audience is made up of people who have enormous purchasing power and who consult the supplements to know what to buy.
- They can adapt their business model very quickly because they are not dependent on one type of advertiser.

Back to Edward, he tried to dethrone Anna and failed. Now he is moving on to his next plan. Very clever. For me, he is a winner: a pompous title at Condé Nast, a tenure that people talk about a lot, a biography that sells well and a crazy network. The projects he will have will certainly be bigger than just fashion and styling.

wonder if Edward would also be returning to his old consulting jobs at every major fashion houses. Hmmmm

 

[carbon-made]

He will probably be freer to pick up consultancy jobs without incurring in conflict of interests - Edward understood that fashion is a tool rather than the be-all and end-all.

 

[FashionFanatico]

I think there's a difference. Anna probably does care for fashion. Her own brand and universe of fashion, at least. And she made sure to link everything she did to American Vogue which is what made her indispensable. The Met Gala (arts), the CFDA fund (fashion), Fashion Night Out (retail, which failed in America but is still running in Australia) etc etc. If it was only money, she would've given up the EIC position a long time ago because she's past the stage where she needs it to sign a deal.

Edward, by giving up on the UK Vogue position, is probably only after the power and money? I don't know his next move. But he could very easily have replicated her model in the UK which would've strengthened the already strong grip he has on the magazine. For instance, London is an art capital. Although we have many proper fairs already, a Vogue art fair would've been stunning. A Vogue Chelsea Flower Show too. And this should have been steered by him too. So the idea was not to just ask for more money from CN, but to rather bring in new income channels, make sure you and only you drive it, and then ask for more money.

Via The Guardian

Vogue editor Anna Wintour planning London’s answer to Met Gala

Stormzy, Naomi Campbell and Sadiq Khan among those expected at ticketed fashion show raising funds for city’s arts scene

In a perfect storm of fashion catwalk and West End theatrics, Vogue’s editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, is planning a philanthropic arts extravaganza that she hopes will take over the world “in the way the Met Gala did” – while raising money for London’s struggling arts scene.

Featuring Naomi Campbell, Stormzy and Michaela Coel, alongside the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and the actor Sir Ian McKellen, the evening event will take place at London’s Theatre Royal Drury Lane, and include a red carpet outside, a catwalk show within, and live performances overseen by director Stephen Daldry.

The show, which is otherwise under wraps, will last under an hour. But unlike most fashion shows, it will be ticketed and open to the public, with all proceeds going to performing arts organisations in the capital, including the National Theatre, Royal Opera House and Rambert dance company.


Wintour said she had been prompted to donate profits after hearing of budget cuts last November. “I read with dismay about the amount of cuts that were happening around the performing arts,” she told the Guardian. “The creative talent in London is unparalleled, so anything we can do to support all those creatively brilliant people, we’ll do,” she said.

The editor-in-chief of British Vogue, Edward Enninful, agreed, citing “the post-Covid recovery and long term health of the arts” as a catalyst in a statement to the Guardian.
Wintour is considered the most powerful woman in fashion, and has form when it comes to arts philanthropy. In May she oversaw the Met Gala’s black tie annual fundraiser. The event, which also marks the opening of the Metropolitan Museum’s Costume Institute exhibition, tends to drum up more coverage for its red carpet surprises and five-figure ticket prices. But the Costume Institute is the only one of the Met’s curatorial departments that has to fund itself.

Wintour said that philanthropy was not “the only solution – but it is a solution, certainly”.

British Vogue’s features director, Giles Hattersley, said: “Ultimately, a solution would be at a political level, but Vogue has an enormous power in this space.”

While both described Khan’s input as pivotal, Rishi Sunak is not involved. “We haven’t had that conversation so far,” Hattersley said.

The Vogue event will be held in September before London fashion week. London’s fashion scene has suffered since the pandemic, with banner names including Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney and Victoria Beckham moving their shows to Paris, creating a noticeably truncated London schedule.

“Obviously that was on our minds, too,” Wintour said. “We wanted to put a spotlight on the fashion shows. We are incredibly supportive of the talent in London.”

But, she insisted, this was as much about theatre and tourism as it was fashion. “It’s why so many people go to London,” she added. Mark Guiducci, US Vogue’s creative editorial director, added that this was the purpose of the magazine: “Fashion doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” he said. “It needs a cultural context, and that’s what Vogue does.'

Wintour said she wanted the event to be inclusive and open to all, and some tickets – which start at £150 – would be given for free to students. “We’re inviting students, we are trying to make it as welcoming as we can.” It will also be livestreamed.

The show follows last September’s inaugural version, which took over a cobbled street in New York’s Meatpacking District, and opened with Serena Williams in a floor-length silver gown.

“We made the decision that as we were emerging from Covid that we wanted to do something that was not only supporting the fashion industry, but also the restaurant industry, the arts – life in general,” Wintour said. Like London, it was a response to the financial impact of the pandemic on the city’s wider culture, “and not just fashion”.

“I think, post-Covid, everyone just loves a live event,” said Wintour, who has been global chief content officer for Condé Nast since 2020. “It is important to us to be seen as global.” To that end, it will be livestreamed around the world, and next year, the plan is to take it to a major European city – most likely Milan or Paris – before moving to an Asian capital.

As a British-born journalist and editor living abroad, Wintour said she had a particular fondness for London theatre, and came back “as often as I can”. Asked if she will ever return to London, she said: “Mark [Guiducci] has already moved to London – and I’m not far behind.”

Thanks for this, i totally get your point - and i agree that Anna was always perfect in connecting different kind of people and cultures under the pretense of fashion, mostly American fashion though. it was very noble of her that she was always pushing her darling youngster desingers in the spotlight and get them even well payed and steady engagments at bigger fashion houses. I pay her a lot of credit for this.

But lately it looks much more just like a sheme to push CN and Vogue as a brand. It must be the sign of our times.

Vogue World in London is a very noble thing to install - but in the end it's mostly about the rich and famous like for example Naomi and Vicky Beckham (the cheapest ticket is £221 & the most expensive up to £900) spending a a flamboyant night together feeling fine to do something good while the die-hard fashion crowd without a big wallet is excluded from the live spectacle. Ok - they can sit at home and watch it online, fair enough. But it's not the same.

Vogue World is a topnotch charity event on it's highest level. But is it really helping to push great fashion and/or upcoming desingers in the long term? For me the involvement of Charlotte Wales, Stormzy and Co is just used as a fig leaf to add some youthness to the spectacle. It's just not fully honest imo.

Of course it will be great for social media, but in the long run it will not add so much to more creativity and democratic possibilities in fashion or the fashion industry. that's my humble opinion. and i wish that i am totally wrong - and all the intentions are genuine and just for the sake of Fashion with a big F.

 

[Bernie Flood]

He will probably be freer to pick up consultancy jobs without incurring in conflict of interests - Edward understood that fashion is a tool rather than the be-all and end-all.

Vogue editors are now free to do brand consulting since CN keeps cutting cost

 

[VERNIQUE]

I mean the branding of the London event says it all.
it's quite obvious how the future of Vogue as a media product will look like. And it's already in full process. Once there will only be one big one left (of course adapted to the different key markets of the different countries). Safes tons of costs, salaries and streamlines the brand globally.

Sad, but true: Vogue will become like Starbucks or McDonalds.
Everything in it will look (more or less) the same wherever you will go.

 

[avonlea002]

We will never get rid of this b*tch. Naomi has to shove herself in every project possible. Desperate for attention for the very first day.

 

[vogue28]

Anyone else pick up on Anna Wintour hinting she’s ‘not far behind’ Mark Guiducci in moving to London from the article featured on The Guardian website?

 

[Benn98]

Anyone else pick up on Anna Wintour hinting she’s ‘not far behind’ Mark Guiducci in moving to London from the article featured on The Guardian website?

Well Bill Nighy has made it clear in countless interviews that he's happy to travel, but prefers to be based in London. Who can blame him? Los Angeles is a dreadful place and New York is not all that either. I imagine at some point she'll have to move to London. Maybe once they're public.

 

[Benn98]

Via an article on The Independent (paywall so I'd rather not post the entire article )

The new position comes amidst rumours of a rift between Enninful and Anna Wintour, the longstanding editor-in-chief of American Vogue.

Despite speculation that Enninful will replace Wintour as the head of American Vogue when she eventually retires, Condé Nast insiders believe that there has been a “great tension” between the two fashion powerhouses.

His stepping down comes just two days after Wintour announced the second annual Vogue World will make its way to London in September ahead of London Fashion Week. Sources say that her decision to hold the fashion extravaganza, which aims to celebrate British art and culture, in Enninful’s so-called dominion was “incredibly annoying for him” and that the US-based editor was treading on his toes.

They also link to this Daily Beast article, which I don't trust because they once cooked up a malicious campaign of lies against Nicki Minaj that ultimately helped tarnish her name.

Anna Wintour’s Feud With Her Protégé Is Turning Condé Nasty

In this week’s edition of Confider, we reveal the cold war among top Vogue icons. Which Devil in Prada will win out?

Lachlan Cartwright
Editor At Large
Updated Sep. 26, 2022 9:38PM ET / Published Sep. 26, 2022 7:30PM ET
The relationship between Anna Wintour and her protégé Edward Enninful, the editor of British Vogue, has turned frosty, Condé Nast insiders tell Confider, as Enninful is apparently gunning for the Iron Lady of Gloss’ plum job.

Enninful, who has spent the last several weeks on a nonstop book tour promoting his memoir, A Visible Man, believes he can do a better job than Wintour atop the Vogue brand, according to multiple people who’ve spoken with him. He has generated much buzz for the British edition of the iconic mag since taking over in 2017, getting his mega-celebrity friends like Rihanna and Beyoncé to appear on the cover.

Condé sources are adamant, however, that Wintour will not be leaving her perch anytime soon, leading many to speculate that she may try to appease Enninful by finding him another top job within the media empire.

One possible scenario: Whenever David Remnick steps down as editor of The New Yorker, Wintour would replace him with current Vanity Fair editor Radhika Jones, opening a seat for Enninful to take over the prestigious outlet.

Enninful has much in common with Wintour: He’s earned the nickname “Queen Mother” among British Vogue staffers because of his alleged diva-like behavior that, per people familiar with the situation, includes having assistants lead him around through meetings and carry his glasses and his eye drops and help apply them. He is also known to tell colleagues to “call Darnell”—a reference to Darnell Strom, his powerful agent at UTA—when asked for simple requests, according to people who work closely with him.

Enninful’s absence earlier this month at Vogue World, a major NYC fashion event for both Condé and Wintour, raised eyebrows among staffers, considering he was in New York promoting his book at the same time—further fueling claims that fiery tensions exist between the pair.

“I’m happy working in Europe,” Enninful told The New York Times last month when asked if he has ambitions to run the Vogue mothership. “But you never know what the future holds.”

A rep for Condé did not respond to requests for comment.

 

[Bernie Flood]

We will never get rid of this b*tch. Naomi has to shove herself in every project possible. Desperate for attention for the very first day.

She paid her dues. She earned it, im all for it

 

[Deleted member 141523]

Must be out of topic, but this was Anna's experience;

From the archive: Anna Wintour on leaving London for New York

19 May 1997: The British editor of American Vogue has thrived in US publishing despite once getting fired for being too ‘European’

Anna Wintour
Thu 18 May 2017 17.01 BSTLast modified on Thu 26 Mar 2020 14.21 GM
My career got off to a very shaky start when I dropped out of school at the age of 18. Despite my lack of academic credentials, I got a job as a fashion assistant at Harper’s & Queen. I now know that this would never have happened in the States, as one of the big differences between American and British journalism is the expectation of qualifications. For one to get a job as a secretary at American Vogue, for example, Conde Nast’s personnel department demands some dazzling degree. High school drop-outs, even ones who show promise, don’t stand much of a chance.

I’m often asked why I left London for New York in the late seventies, and the reason is because five years of being asked over and over again if I was the daughter of Charles Wintour (editor of the London Evening Standard, 1959-80) was more than enough. In the many years I’ve now spent in New York not a single person has ever asked me who my father is, or was, or what he does.

My first job in the States was as a junior fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar, which I enjoyed but not for all that long because I was fired by the editor in chief, who told me that I was too ‘European’. At the time I didn’t know what he meant, but in retrospect I think it meant that I was obstinate, that I wouldn’t take direction and that I totally ignored my editor’s need for credits. In his eyes I was neither commercial, nor professional. The shoot that finally drove him over the edge was when I photographed the Paris collections on girls with Rastafarian dreadlocks - a concept that must have been ahead of its time.

Thinking about that chapter in my life, what I find most interesting is to realise how little things have changed: talented, but totally self-absorbed, young English girls now come to see me with some regularity, and with some regularity they tend, not unlike myself way back, to have an almost total disregard for readers. With a bit of regret, I also realise that I have moved closer to the position of the editor who fired me. Although I might not have fired me, I certainly would have given myself a stern lecture - on how readers prefer seeing healthy, energetic, smiling girls over sick, sad and strange ones. And I might also have reminded myself of the fact that if you don’t acknowledge your magazine’s advertisers you won’t have a magazine.

After a series of jobs that I prefer not to recall, I was hired in the early eighties as fashion editor of New York magazine. It was a time in New York when artists, fashion designers and interior decorators were in fierce competition with each other for celebrity status, and Ed Kosner, then the editor in chief, allowed me to take advantage of that to break away from the usual catalogue formula of fashion journalism. To no one’s surprise, the decorators and artists were delighted to be photographed next to gorgeous girls, and the approach seemed to go down well.


For one issue, I asked some ‘of the moment’ eighties artists - Francesco Clemente, David Salle, Jean-Michel Basquiat - to interpret the New York collections. That story caught the eye of Alexander Liberman, then the all-mighty editorial director of Conde Nast, who offered me the position of creative director at American Vogue. In fact, I’d already been to American Vogue once before but nothing came of it - the reason being that when the editor in chief at the time asked me what job I really wanted, I said, in a sudden fit of candour, ‘Yours’.

In 1986, I returned to London as editor in chief of British Vogue. Although I still thought of myself as totally English, to my surprise everyone here thought I was some sort of American control freak. Journalists portrayed me as a wicked woman of steel - I always wore black and fired everyone in sight. Actually, I am always depressed by the sight of black-clad fashion journalists descending like nuns on the collections, and I remember letting only two or three people go. But, no doubt fearing my awful reputation, a number left of their own accords. It was about this time the British press began referring to me as ‘Nuclear Wintour’ and the ‘Wintour of our Discontent’.

Perhaps the cool reception I received in London was not entirely my fault. After all, replacing Bea Miller wasn’t easy. Everyone loved her. Plus, there was a cozy but mildly eccentric atmosphere at British Vogue, which, after my time in New York, struck me as out of date. It also seemed out of step with the fast developing social and political changes that were thundering through Britain in the eighties, under Margaret Thatcher. I felt the cozy approach was not responsive to intelligent women’s changing lives. So I decided to infuse the magazine with a bit of American worldliness, even toughness.

Naturally, I met with a bit of resistance. On the other hand, during my time at British Vogue I realised that there were and are lots of good things about the British approach. The British fashion editor - and I am talking about the girl who goes out on the shoot - is extremely independent. She chooses the clothes herself, she has a big say in selecting the photographer, and she spends a lot of time planning the location and the details of the shoot. By contrast, the approach in New York is positively industrialised. Staffs are enormous and editors - each with a highly specific job - abound. I was astonished when I learned that American Vogue had a bra editor.

In the States, the opportunity for a creative or personal approach is relatively limited. There are just too many cooks in the kitchen. This somewhat corporate manner of fashion editing isn’t due to any lack of creativity on the part of American editors. Rather, it’s dictated by the enormous size of the American market. Plus, the stakes are higher - American Vogue’s circulation is 1.2 million.


When I went back to the States to edit Vogue I took the British approach with me because it seemed that what was needed was some sort of combination of the two. For example, I gave the individual fashion editors more responsibility than they’d been used to. I encouraged them to sign their own stories and to develop their individual styles. But because of the phenomenal support system, the New York editors could work at a much faster pace than their London counterparts. The English fashion editor - at least when I was there - would comb the market, book both photographer and models, and plan the shoot with the same exquisite detail seen in London stage design. At best, these editors could only muster up one story an issue. In short, the English did everything except press the button on the camera - and I hear they often do that as well. By contrast, in New York the editor can usually do one shoot a week - sometimes more.

There are striking differences not only between the journalists but between the magazines. The best British magazines are conceived in a fit of editorial passion. Their gestation period is short, their need for sustenance is modest and in no time a British magazine can move from editorial idea to the news-stand. By contrast the conception of an American magazine is more likely an act of artificial insemination - a group of businessmen with their eye firmly fixed on the bottom line see a ‘revenue opportunity’ and after many meetings finally ‘green-light it’. Then begins months of market and design research.

A vivid example of the difference between British and American magazines are the launches of new ones. Dazed & Confused was founded five years ago by three art students. With no backers, and no personal money, these entrepreneurs managed to launch their dream by getting one company to sponsor their first three issues. After grabbing the industry’s attention with their experimental take on fashion, they now hit news-stands with a respectable number of ads. Rankin Waddell, 29, the only founding member left, is often described as a ‘control freak’. Lord help him if he dresses in black. In contrast, a new American magazine that was launched last year spent $40 million, had a large staff for a full year of research and careful marketing plans before appearing on the news-stand.

The same Atlantic divide separates American and British fashion. While a handful of high-profile British designers now have dazzling jobs at enormous French fashion cartels, you might remember that Alexander McQueen created his first collection for $4,000. By contrast, Victor Alfaro, a young, talented Mexican designer who lives and works in New York, recently abandoned his business because he couldn’t find the necessary $25 million!

In summary, the British fashion journalist often sees herself as an artist or a craftsman. Her work is very hands-on, she cares a lot about originality and less about readers or advertisers, and she is respected for this by her boss - who doesn’t pay her enough. Within limits she is left alone to get on with the job, which she can usually count on keeping for a very long time.

The New York editor, on the other hand, has many more resources to call on. She works in a tightly co-ordinated and organised system which leaves less scope for her individuality. She is acutely aware of her readership and the magazine’s advertisers, and she is handsomely paid. On the other hand, she does not enjoy the same job security.

How might I account for the Tina Brown/Anna
Wintour /Liz Tilberis/Glenda Bailey phenomenon? Well, it is not only British women who have succeeded at American magazines. The phenomenon also includes Andrew Sullivan at the New Republic, Bill Buford at the New Yorker and David Yelland at the New York Post. The fact that the British have been so successful in the States as editors of such a wide range of publications surely demonstrates that our appeal doesn’t lie in any sort of cultural mystique. Contrary to what some cynics have said, it’s not the accent. If the sensibilities of New York and London were not so strikingly similar, we foreigners could never have succeeded.

I believe that market considerations on each side of the Atlantic have led to different systems, which, when taken alone, are in different ways equally flawed but when they meet it’s a marriage made in heaven. I have been tremendously lucky to work at a magazine like American Vogue, which is not only editorially driven but also commercially successful. I have also been tremendously lucky to have had the experience of working in Britain before turning up in New York.

This is an edited version of a speech given by Anna Wintour last week at the Women In Journalism meeting in London.

The Guardian, 19 May 1997.

 

[Bernie Flood]

Via an article on The Independent (paywall so I'd rather not post the entire article )

The new position comes amidst rumours of a rift between Enninful and Anna Wintour, the longstanding editor-in-chief of American Vogue.

Despite speculation that Enninful will replace Wintour as the head of American Vogue when she eventually retires, Condé Nast insiders believe that there has been a “great tension” between the two fashion powerhouses.

His stepping down comes just two days after Wintour announced the second annual Vogue World will make its way to London in September ahead of London Fashion Week. Sources say that her decision to hold the fashion extravaganza, which aims to celebrate British art and culture, in Enninful’s so-called dominion was “incredibly annoying for him” and that the US-based editor was treading on his toes.

They also link to this Daily Beast article, which I don't trust because they once cooked up a malicious campaign of lies against Nicki Minaj that ultimately helped tarnish her name.

Anna Wintour’s Feud With Her Protégé Is Turning Condé Nasty

In this week’s edition of Confider, we reveal the cold war among top Vogue icons. Which Devil in Prada will win out?

Lachlan Cartwright
Editor At Large
Updated Sep. 26, 2022 9:38PM ET / Published Sep. 26, 2022 7:30PM ET
The relationship between Anna Wintour and her protégé Edward Enninful, the editor of British Vogue, has turned frosty, Condé Nast insiders tell Confider, as Enninful is apparently gunning for the Iron Lady of Gloss’ plum job.

Enninful, who has spent the last several weeks on a nonstop book tour promoting his memoir, A Visible Man, believes he can do a better job than Wintour atop the Vogue brand, according to multiple people who’ve spoken with him. He has generated much buzz for the British edition of the iconic mag since taking over in 2017, getting his mega-celebrity friends like Rihanna and Beyoncé to appear on the cover.

Condé sources are adamant, however, that Wintour will not be leaving her perch anytime soon, leading many to speculate that she may try to appease Enninful by finding him another top job within the media empire.

One possible scenario: Whenever David Remnick steps down as editor of The New Yorker, Wintour would replace him with current Vanity Fair editor Radhika Jones, opening a seat for Enninful to take over the prestigious outlet.

Enninful has much in common with Wintour: He’s earned the nickname “Queen Mother” among British Vogue staffers because of his alleged diva-like behavior that, per people familiar with the situation, includes having assistants lead him around through meetings and carry his glasses and his eye drops and help apply them. He is also known to tell colleagues to “call Darnell”—a reference to Darnell Strom, his powerful agent at UTA—when asked for simple requests, according to people who work closely with him.

Enninful’s absence earlier this month at Vogue World, a major NYC fashion event for both Condé and Wintour, raised eyebrows among staffers, considering he was in New York promoting his book at the same time—further fueling claims that fiery tensions exist between the pair.

“I’m happy working in Europe,” Enninful told The New York Times last month when asked if he has ambitions to run the Vogue mothership. “But you never know what the future holds.”

A rep for Condé did not respond to requests for comment.

Edward probably thinks that he could be the next Andre Leon Talley- the most powerful black man in Vogue and fashion of his time.

 

[blueorchid]

I mean... didn't he already "top" ALT's achievements by becoming the editor of Vogue UK?

 

[Bernie Flood]

Must be out of topic, but this was Anna's experience;

But Conde Nast treatment of Ms. Mirabella was dirty and bad. Same with DV. Real talk

 

[avonlea002]

She paid her dues. She earned it, im all for it

So did many other models of her generation, yet they are not even half as attention hungry and irritating as Naomi.