It depends on how you define value, doesn't it? There are a number of factors governing or, rather, influencing the 'value' of textual content in fashion and style magazines.
Most of the mainstream magazines have a fixed rate system. In the anglo-saxon world, writers are generally paid by the word. Magazines in European countries pay by the character or, in France, the feuillet, which equates to around 240 words.
Indy magazines often prefer not to pay, following the lead established by British independent fashion and style magazines in the 1990s. Some of them make a point of paying their contributors for ethical reasons, which is laudable. More than a few indy magazines serve as cartes de visite for professional art directors and, in some cases, photographers. Some of them see the merit in good text and captions. For others, text is merely something that gets in the way of all those images and white space.
Many publishers and their executives do not read much. They might get through a couple of airport novels on the beach during summer and winter breaks but that really is about the extent of their literary activity. So when they appoint editors to run their titles, they will often appoint similarly under-educated editors whose talents lie in prostituting the magazine to advertisers rather than serving up the best possible product to readers.
Of course, a magazine is really just a collection of bound advertising pages separated by articles, fashion shoots and other editorial content. To imagine otherwise is naive. The trick lies in creating a fine balance between what we call "the wh*re pages" that finance the magazine and what we fondly hope is worthwhile content for readers who buy the magazine. The monies generated by copy sales rarely if ever cover even the pre-production costs, especially once the distribution cartels have taken their pound of flesh and then some.
There are still some good, old school chief editors who know how to manage this balance. Two who spring to mind in their respective markets are Anna Wintour and Aliona Doletskaya. Of course, Wintour's Vogue is very commercial and unadventurous because she knows that she is not producing a glossy for Manhattan consumption alone. She has to sell her magazine to Middle America. Doletskaya is less impeded by the need to dumb it down and, moreover, avoid incurring the wrath of America's numerous religious maniacs, which can have a very negative effect on copy sales, as we found when we allowed a nipple, and an erect nipple to boot, to escape onto the cover of an issue of Vogue Hommes International.
Coming back to the question of putting a value on content: publishers and the more obedient kind of chief editor like to imagine that anyone can write an article, pointing to the weblog explosion as 'proof' of their assertions. Writers and journalists are worthless to them, unless they happen to be famous in their own right. This has seen a rise in pop stars, footballers' wives, models and other often educationally sub-normal people 'writing' columns and pieces for newspapers and magazines, the vast majority of which are, like the books they also write, ghostwritten by qualified writers. The difference is that we earn good money for ghostwriting a celeb's memoirs or children's stories but there is no extra pay for turning some cornerboy's babble into good copy for a newspaper or magazine piece.
Nor is there extra pay for turning bloggers' babble into copy worthy of inclusion in a magazine that, at least, tries to take itself seriously. The celeb contributors do at least get paid handsomely for the use of their names but most of the bloggers give it away for nothing. However, the real victim is good writing. There is less and less good writing in magazines, particularly fashion magazines. Perhaps it is unnecessary these days. After all, if you search this website for any serious discussion about magazine content above and beyond photographs and fashion shoots, you will not have much success. Some people who buy fashion magazines read the articles and interviews in them but one suspects that the majority just look at the pictures, particularly those in the under-35 age group.
To give you an example of how things are: I recently found myself with some unpublished, exclusive interviews of top fashion 'names' on my hands as the result of a project that turned out to be abortive. Having cleared it with a couple of them, I proposed these pieces to several top drawer publications. One of them was a serious interview with Peter Lindbergh, who rarely gives interviews because his time is so limited. Now, it wasn't that nobody wanted it. It was more a case of nobody wanting to pay for it, even though the price was 'industry standard' as a nod to the so-called 'economic crisis'. In the end, I gave it away to a friend with an indy magazine because her protestations of empty coffers were more credible - and honest - than those of editors who think that e-mailing twenty questions to someone's agent or press office makes for a serious interview and, moreover, one they don't have to pay for because the questions are pro forma and they get the intern to deal with it. On that score, agents and fashion houses often put professional journalists on retainers to respond to email and fax interviews on behalf of the great and good. So the whole thing is a scam. How do I know? I've been one of those 'consultants'...
There again, none of this is new. The 'economic crisis' is merely a convenient excuse to avoid buying in quality content when blogs and email interviews "will do" because "our readers are all mindless cretins who only look at the pictures anyway". I remember securing Marlon Brando's agreement to do an interview. Brando tended to avoid interviews because he found them tedious so this was quite a coup. I sent him a couple of mine and he was up for it. So I called my editor at British GQ and told him the great news. Response: "Er, yeah, um, okay, but what is he up to at the moment? Is there any reason why we should run a Marlon Brando piece?". A couple of other editors of men's magazines for which I wrote at the time reacted similarly.
How can one put a value on content when the whole system is so screwed up? It's like the economy at the moment. You can pitch wonderful articles and interviews to editors but you have to know if the editor is worth it otherwise it's like throwing pearls to swine. This is not to suggest that all editors and all publications are worthless. Far from it. But we live in a world where quality content is not only perceived as not worth the money by the businesspeople running the media but might even be seen as a threat in terms of showing up the mediocrity of their publications or programmes, if we include television and the internet as media. Just because readers and viewers read or watch sub-standard rubbish, it does not follow that they are as stupid as publishing executives like to suggest. Readers and viewers to respond to quality content and there's the rub: with so many publications and channels to feed, quality content is a liability from a business viewpoint.
It is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it and if there is isn't a market for it, then it is worthless. Of course, you can give it away to a nice-looking Indy mag or even some serious mainstream mags and you will at least get some good tearsheets for your portfolio and your website. And then, once you work all the rooms and the events, you will be seen as a 'serious journalist' by people who don't even know what this means. No matter, because they will hire you to write their corporate blurbs and releases and to generate responses to email and fax interviews from the world's media and you will, hopefully, be able not just to pay your rent but to eat as well. And one day, you might even launch your own magazine, in print or on the web, to keep the whole system going.
Just don't come into the game thinking that a degree in journalism or, even better, some skill and talent as a writer is going to make you the next Suzy Menkes, Kathy Horyn or Colin McDowell. Try to understand that this is a business that is just as tough as any other business and if you want to make a living from it, you have to understand how it works.
PK