Interview Magazine Shutting Down, Files Bankruptcy

^He maybe saw it as further prooof of the magazine's prestige? A return to their origins seeing how Andy Warhol denied any form of payment to his actors?

Sad loss to the fashion world, we really can't afford to say goodbye to titles such as Interview. It truly was one of the last bastions of REAL fashion photography.
 
Yes, all in the name of art! :rolleyes:

I suppose it was fine for Fabien and Karl to overlook not getting paid because they could easily make their money elsewhere, but what about the rest of the staff? Then you had a Lexus advertorial (lowest of the low in terms of moves) which probably did bring in money, yet still, nobody gets a penny? This is not event getting into the advertising, partnerships and native content revenue. One can tell this magazine was run by an industrialist.

The Great Interview Magazine Caper

Andy Warhol’s magazine is dead. No wait, it’s back! Inside Peter Brant’s latest magic trick.

By Jacob Bernstein
June 16, 2018

Last November, Fabien Baron was trying to collect $498,000 in back pay for his work as the editorial director of Interview. The magazine’s owner, Peter Brant, was in Kentucky buying a $2 million horse.

Soon after, the magazine hired the freelance writer Brian Moylan to do a short piece on the celebrity figure skater Adam Rippon.

He performed his services and never got paid. (His fee would have been $315 — “not enough for my rent but enough to buy a pair of shoes,” Mr. Moylan said.)

With folks clamoring for payment, it wasn’t that surprising when Interview’s employees were summoned to their SoHo offices in May and told the magazine was folding. Its parent company, Brant Publications, was filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, with close to 300 unpaid creditors — including Mr. Baron, who earlier that month sued the company to recover his money.

Celebrity-focused print magazines have been on thin ice for a while now. Friends of Interview’s founder, Andy Warhol, acknowledged that if he were alive today, magazines would not likely be his focus. “He would have gone insane with the internet,” said Diane von Furstenberg. “He would never have slept.” Predictably, when it was announced that Interview was folding, tributes from Annie Lennox, Gwyneth Paltrow and Naomi Campbell came over Instagram.

According to Mr. Brant, who would agree to speak with The New York Times only by email, the magazine “could not survive the sea change in its industry.”

He said that Interview magazine is a “separate legal entity” from himself and added that he put $7 million of his own money into the magazine over the last decade alone — making him its “biggest creditor.”

But it’s difficult to separate Mr. Brant from Interview; it is effectively a family business. Mr. Brant first invested in the magazine in 1969, the year it was founded, with his cousin Joe Allen. From 1989 to 2008, Mr. Brant’s first wife, Sandra Brant, ran the business side. The editor at that time was Ingrid Sischy, who subsequently became Ms. Brant’s girlfriend and then her wife. In 2008, Mr. Brant bought his ex-wife’s share. Two of his children, with Ms. Brant, have helped run Interview. His second wife, the supermodel Stephanie Seymour, had a title there as a contributing fashion editor. And the Brant family’s involvement with Interview may not be over.
On May 25, Interview’s chief revenue officer, Jason Nikic, released a memo that said Interview would rise from the dead under the ownership of an entity called Crystal Ball Media. The next issue, he said, would come in September. The new creative director would be Mel Ottenberg, a stylist who works with Rihanna. Interview, he promised, would be “as beautiful, as creative, and as visually stunning as ever.” The president would be Kelly Brant, Mr. Brant’s daughter and the magazine’s digital director.

This was a strangely confident assertion. To assume ownership of the bankrupt magazine, Crystal Ball Media likely will have to earn the support of a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. In all likelihood, Crystal Ball will have to to outbid other prospective buyers.

But Mr. Baron was infuriated that a Brant might again run Interview when Mr. Brant’s company ignored months of prodding to pay him his money.

In a statement, Mr. Baron’s spokesman, Zak Rosenfield, said: “Peter Brant has proven to be an exploitive and dishonorable businessman who considers himself above the law, with his stewardship of Interview magazine the most recent example. It is now abundantly clear that Interview was kept afloat for decades because of half-truths, unkept promises and his exploitation of the passions and pocketbooks of contributors and staffers, some with meager means, who were eager to carry on the Warhol vision.”

The Invention of Synergy

For a magazine whose paid circulation hovered around 230,000 at its peak, Interview had an outsize footprint. Warhol first published it in 1969 and used to stroll down Madison Avenue handing copies to passers-by. He threw parties for it at Studio 54. He carried a tape recorder in his pocket, which he used to supply Interview with content.

It was first populated with film reviews by college kids. But Warhol’s pop culture leanings, his ambitions to get fashion advertisers, and his interest in politics quickly seeped into the magazine.
From 1975 to 1983, Interview was edited by Bob Colacello. Although Mr. Colacello eventually went on to work for Tina Brown at Vanity Fair, one of his biggest pet peeves is reading that she created “the mix.”

“She mainstreamed it, but the truth is that we invented it at Interview,” he said. “It was a reflection of Andy’s social life, which in any given week might include encounters with Bianca Jagger, Nelson Rockefeller, Valentino, Roy Lichtenstein and on and on and on.”

“We would go to Madison Square Garden, and the cops treated Andy like he was a king,” said Susan Blond, who worked there during the 1970s and became one of the music business’s most successful publicists. “Everyone I ever introduced him to remembered it their whole lives.”
Robert Mapplethorpe took pictures. Fran Lebowitz wrote a film column for $10 a review. André Leon Talley answered the phones, styled shoots and warded off advances from Warhol.
“He was constantly trying to grab my crotch,” said Mr. Talley. One day he and Warhol and Azzedine Alaïa went to the movies. “Andy was on one end and I was on the other, with Azzedine in between us. So Andy slowly snakes his hand across Azzedine’s leg and onto my lap. I jumped up and screamed. Azzedine could not stop laughing.”

Ultimately, Mr. Talley also came to find it amusing. “It was not a Harvey Weinstein moment,” he said. “Andy was a charming person because he saw the world through the kaleidoscope of a child. Everything was ‘gee golly wow.’”

Warhol said this “10 times every five minutes,” said Ms. Furstenberg. Others found that phony. Ms. Lebowitz said she stayed distant because she was convinced he was “not a good influence on the young.”

Warhol used celebrity portrait gigs to obtain cover subjects, and used cover interviews to pitch himself as a for-hire portraitist. “He invented synergy,” Mr. Colacello said. “This was not ethical journalism.”

Warhol could also be deeply cynical. Ms. Blond owns a May 1986 copy of Interview with Tom Cruise on the cover. Warhol had drawn a penis dangling from his mouth.

She’d save it, wisely. Others were not as careful. From 1978 to 1981, Ms. Lebowitz was paid entirely in art. “Let me assure you — it was worth nothing then,” she said. “I sold all my Warhols two weeks before he died for virtually zero. And I believe that’s why he died.”

‘Pay When the Lawyers Call’

When people gossip about Peter Brant, and they have been doing that for more than 30 years, a few incidents come up repeatedly.

In 1986, the United States Polo Association banned him from play after he reportedly challenged an umpire to a fist fight. He filed a $30 million antitrust lawsuit against the organization and lost.

In 1990, he paid the government hundreds of thousands of dollars after being convicted of a misdemeanor for failing to keep adequate tax records. This included billing personal expenses such as silk sheets, massages, and scalp treatments to his newsprint companies. He spent 84 days in jail, which was surprising to Ms. Lebowitz only because “most rich people don’t pay their taxes and manage to avoid going to jail.”

In 2009, Mr. Brant and his second wife, Ms. Seymour, got into a messy and public divorce battle, where they traded accusations of infidelity and substance abuse.

Hearings were set to determine how their assets should be divided, but the day they were to begin, Mr. Brant and Ms. Seymour waltzed into court hand in hand and announced they were reconciling.
Mr. Brant grew up in the Jamaica Estates section of Queens. His father owned a paper empire, and one of his close friends at Kew-Forest School was Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Brant ventured into Times Square together, and bought stink bombs, hot peppered gum, and plastic vomit. Around the time they finished seventh grade, Fred Trump found his son Donald’s switchblade and sent him off to the New York Military Academy.

While Mr. Brant was in college at the University of Colorado, he met his first wife and began using his family’s money to buy art. That led to a meeting with Warhol and an investment in his magazine.

For a while, Warhol and the Brants were close. They traveled to Paris and shopped for art deco furniture together. Ms. Brant took a job at Interview as its advertising director.

“They were unique among contemporary collectors in that their interest wasn’t just about art,” Mr. Colacello said. “It was architecture, landscaping, decorating and fashion. They really had an aesthetic approach across the board. They were a great couple. And they had great taste.”

Some people thought it was strange to encounter two people in their twenties with an ownership stake in a magazine. “But to tell you the truth, I’ve never really understood what owning Interview means,” Ms. Lebowitz said. “It didn’t make any money, and everyone lied about the circulation. I know that because when I was really young, I used to drive the magazine to the printers. I got fifty dollars for it. The sales they were telling people was like five times the print run.”
Mr. Brant pressed Warhol and his colleagues to keep costs down. “He would question why we paid our bills so quickly,” Mr. Colacello said. “I said, ‘We pay everyone within 90 days.’ He said, ‘No, no, no. You pay when the lawyers call.’”

A rift developed. “He was a tough businessman and Andy wanted control,” said Vincent Fremont, who worked for Warhol and later for Mr. Brant.

In 1975, Warhol was struggling to finance the film “Bad.” Mr. Brant agreed to provide $1.2 million and give back his ownership stake in the magazine. (It was supposed to go to Warhol’s close aide, Fred Hughes.) Then, Mr. Brant decided he would invest only $1 million and made that contingent on Warhol putting in $200,000 of his own money — perhaps not an unreasonable demand to anyone who’s seen one of Warhol’s films.

Warhol refused, so Mr. Hughes stepped in and gambled his savings on the film. It lost a pile of dough and everyone felt burned. Mr. Brant began auctioning off his Warhols.

“I had to meet Peter Brant for lunch at the office,” Warhol dictated for his diary in 1981. “He was just awful. He picked out some prints, and now we’re all settled with him on the money he invested in Bad and he never has to come back. Good.”

A Series of ‘Misunderstandings’

When Warhol died in 1987, Interview was on hard times. Two years later, Mr. Brant bought it at auction for $12 million. His cousin Mr. Allen couldn’t believe it. “I thought he was nuts. I said ‘why would you want to do this,’ and he really didn’t answer,” Mr. Allen said.
But Mr. Brant is also the “type of person,” Mr. Allen said, “who will give you his wallet and then get in a fight with you over a quarter.”

And ultimately, Mr. Brant didn’t spend $12 million on Interview.

Instead, he wrote a check for $4.9 million, signed a guarantee for the rest, and then did not pay it. The Warhol Estate sued him. Eventually, the parties settled for $10 million and Mr. Brant — who described these events as a series of “misunderstandings” — said they had a good relationship after that.

The Brants first big move as the magazine’s new owners was to install Ingrid Sischy, previously of Art Forum, as its new editor. Soon after she was hired, Mr. Brant went to jail. His marriage also ended.

He started seeing Ms. Seymour, and Ms. Brant took up with Ms. Sischy, whose gifts as a social connector earned her a reputation as a modern-day Gertrude Stein.

Ms. Sischy, who died of cancer in 2015, didn’t just rehabilitate the magazine and bring it into profitability. With her contributing music columnist, Elton John, she staged an intervention with Donatella Versace. (She went to rehab.) Ms. Sischy also palled around with Karl Lagerfeld and Nicole Kidman, who shot pictures together for Interview and collaborated on Chanel campaigns.

Mr. Brant was occupied with his paper empire and his art holdings, which came to include freshly commissioned works of his wife by Julian Schnabel, Francesco Clemente and Maurizio Cattelan. (The sculpture Mr. Cattelan built in her honor was actually a legless, dead-eyed mannequin he referred to as “Trophy Wife.”)

In 2003, Mr. Brant was accused of tax fraud in a civil suit by James Comey, then the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The art dealer Larry Gagosian and Mr. Brant, the charges said, set up a shell company to buy and sell art. After earning $17 million, the men declared the company bankrupt. Mr. Brant wound up contributing to a $9.1 million settlement with the government.

Outwardly, Ms. Brant and Mr. Brant enjoyed a progressive divorce. But there were tensions, according to friends of the couple.

Mr. Brant didn’t always love being in business with his ex-wife and her girlfriend, while Ms. Sischy and Ms. Brant grew tired of Mr. Brant’s drama. Ms. Seymour got bored in Greenwich as Ms. Sischy and Ms. Brant traveled the world with designers whose ad campaigns she’d once appeared in.

As the marriage between Ms. Seymour and Mr. Brant turned into what one friend called a “mansion on fire,” Ms. Sischy and Ms. Brant decided it was time to gain some independence.

They approached various publishers about buying Mr. Brant’s stake in Interview. But ultimately, they sold themselves: In 2008, Mr. Brant gave them $15 million for their stake in the magazine and Condé Nast hired them to be roving international editors.
With their departure, bills stopped getting paid on time. Mr. Allen said it was more likely inefficiency than malevolent intent. “Sandy ran a tight ship,” he said.

Source: Nytimes.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CONTINUED........

The Road to Bankruptcy

Mr. Brant picked two people to replace Ms. Sischy. He turned to Glenn O’Brien, a longtime Interview editor, for the words and to Fabien Baron for the visuals.

Mr. Baron had spent the previous decade working with Carine Roitfeld at French Vogue, turning it into a commercial and critical success. He also runs a creative agency, Baron & Baron, which directs ad campaigns for major fashion brands. (There is no other Baron.)

But Mr. Baron and Mr. O’Brien, who died in 2017, didn’t do well sharing control.

Just a year after being hired, Mr. Baron left the magazine (with $527,389 owed to him, according to 2009 emails from his office to Brant Publications.) Mr. Brant’s son Ryan took over as Interview’s president. He had little experience in publishing and was also on probation, having pleaded guilty in 2007 to backdating stock options at a video game company.

The Brants booted Mr. O’Brien and courted Mr. Baron to come back, telling him he would have a salary of $450,000 a year and creative control. They also promised to pay him the remaining balance they owed him. (On his way out, Mr. O’Brien talked openly about Interview’s debts, including telling the New York Post that the magazine owed money to “everybody — retouchers, printers, photographers, writers.”)

Meanwhile, Mr. Brant was having problems of his own, including a 2010-11 bankruptcy at his paper and newsprint companies. Being a paper magnate is not what it once was.
Over the next few years, high-end photographers came aboard because of Mr. Baron. Celebrities followed for edgy pictures, the kind Condé Nast didn’t generally publish in the United States. Mr. Baron quietly told colleagues to insist on being paid in advance.

Sometimes that worked.

In 2016, Interview’s president, Dan Ragone, sued for $170,000 in unpaid wages. In 2017, associate publisher Jane Katz followed suit, demanding $230,000 in back pay. Those cases remain unsettled.

Last July, Ms. Brant’s daughter Kelly acknowledged that Mr. Baron was owed more than $498,000. She wrote in an email to his representatives that a “significant” payment would be made to him in August, and that the remainder would be paid by October 2017.

The payments never came and the bill grew by $100,000. In February of this year, Interview was thrown out of its SoHo offices temporarily over unpaid rent.
Not So Fast

“I do not have a history of not paying my debts,” said Mr. Brant in an email to the Times, adding that he feels badly “for anyone that lost money due to Interview Inc.’s bankruptcy.”

“In the last 10 years, I loaned Interview, Inc. in excess of $7 million so that it could continue to pay its employees and the costs of its operations,” he wrote. “I never took out money from the business.”

He blamed his creditors for the magazine’s demise. Because people who hadn’t been paid were suing to be paid, Mr. Brant said, he was left with “no other option but to liquidate” Interview’s assets. “There was no buyer that would take on the debt and liabilities of the business, and therefore no possibility that it could devise a plan to become profitable again in its current structure,” he wrote.

Bankruptcy laws don’t require owners to assume responsibility for debts at declining businesses — even when those owners live with their supermodel wives on giant Greenwich estates, surrounded by modernist masterworks. “The purpose of having a corporation is to insulate against personal liability,” said Susheel Kirpalani, a partner at Quinn Emanuel who specializes in bankruptcy and who was not involved in the case.

But those circumstances do provide added opportunity for outrage. “To announce plans to relaunch the magazine free of that debt in three months, with his daughter at the helm, is not only sinister, but a premeditated sham,” said Mr. Rosenfield, the rep for Mr. Baron.

Ms. Lebowitz simply shrugged. “I don’t have as much faith in rich people as other people seem to have,” she said. “Morals and aesthetics are not related. Surely you’ve noticed.”

Jacob Bernstein is a reporter for the Styles desk. In addition to writing profiles of fashion designers, artists and celebrities, he has focused much of his attention on L.G.B.T. issues, philanthropy and the world of furniture design. @bernsteinjacob

Source: Nytimes.com
 
Thanks for the posts Benn.

Andy really was Interview's biggest fan and salesman. He would carry stacks of them and just and hand them out on the street. It's all in his (Andy Warhol's) Diaries. Can you imagine Emmanuelle, Carine and Marie-Amelie doing that with their magazines...????

I'm curious and drawn to this resurrection come September. But it's all just so unethical, shady and slimey... Even if it does succeed in presentation, they can't wash off the Brants' douchebag slime.
 
No prob!

Btw, the drama continues.....which celebrity in their right mind would shoot for them knowing how disgusting this saga is playing out? Oh wait, perhaps Rihanna with her 'big di*k energy'....:rolleyes:

Interview Magazine Owner Peter Brant Likely Only Winner in Bankruptcy

Brant is poised to be paid back for the “loans” he made to his magazine over the years. Those who worked for it unpaid are not so lucky.

By Kali Hays on June 26, 2018

The prospect of Interview magazine paying off any but one of its hundreds of creditors is looking less likely by the day — and that one creditor is none other than Peter Brant.

The wealthy Brant, who bought the publication shortly after founder Andy Warhol’s death in the late Eighties, is Interview’s sole secured creditor, a bankruptcy term that means he’s first in a very long line of people who are owed money, according to recent court filings. The fact that Brant owned the entity he was financially supporting, the same entity that failed to pay hundreds of photographers, modeling agencies, freelancers and staffers over recent years, is moot. And it looks like he fronted the magazine a lot of money.

Although a company spokeswoman told WWD after it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a liquidation, that Brant had been floating Interview for some time, the amount was not specified. Now, a court appointed trustee has said in a lengthy filing that about $8.2 million came from Brant. While the secured creditor is listed as Singleton LLC, its Connecticut business address is the same as White Birch Paper Co., the pulp and paper company Brant owns and oversees as chief executive officer.

The trustee added that in July 2016, Interview, led then and now by Brant’s daughter Kelly Brant, guaranteed “a loan” from Brant “collateralized by security interests in and liens on substantially all of [Interview’s] assets and property.” Brant in February assigned the claim to Singleton.

As for Interview’s assets — which are only listed as a deposit account for copyrights (meaning ownership of its trademarks lay elsewhere), its domain name and its subscriber list, along with a bank account with $17,000 in it — that value is still undetermined. Whatever they’re worth, it seems safe to say it won’t come out to enough to pay Brant, much less Interview’s remaining creditors, who are collectively owed more than $3.3 million.

Anyone getting paid also depends on who buys Interview, but that, like the bankruptcy in general, seems to have been predetermined to an extent by the Brants.

Within days of the mid-May bankruptcy filing, Kelly Brant signed off as president on an internal memo saying that Interview is being acquired by Crystal Ball Media, a new entity she, along with Jason Nikic, Interview’s chief revenue officer and prospective publisher, has formed. The memo suggested that the magazine will relaunch in September with Nick Haramis staying on as editor in chief and Mel Ottenberg, best known as Rihanna’s stylist, having already joined as creative director, a position previously held by stylist Karl Templer. The memo was published by the Daily Front Row, who’s new chief revenue officer is a former Interview executive and claims to be owed $170,000 for his work there.

The memo did not address why Interview actually filed bankruptcy when it did. Court filings show revenue came in at $5.8 million in 2016 and $5.5 million in 2017, relatively unchanged. But the decision to go straight into a liquidation proceeding, as opposed to a Chapter 11 restructuring, points to a rather cynical strategy of dodging creditors and then “buying” assets needed for a relaunch on the cheap.

A representative for Interview and Brant could not be reached for comment.

The only thing that could throw a wrench in such a plan would be if another buyer came along with a better offer for the Interview assets that are for sale, as the trustee is paid based on whatever value is squeezed out of them. But who would be interested in little more than a domain name and a subscriber list? A new owner can’t relaunch the magazine without acquiring the rest of its intellectual property, namely Interview’s trademarks, which again, are not currently listed as assets for sale.

Earlier this month, one source speculated that Brant himself may hold Interview’s trademark or have it in a another holding company not involved in the bankruptcy. There are about two dozen current and expired trademarks registered for Interview, a handful of which originate with the entity DCP-BMP Media Lender LLC. It’s unclear who owns that entity, although BMP Media Holdings is another Brant-owned entity that’s filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, so it seems a safe guess that it shares an owner. If DCP-BMP turns out to control the main Interview trademarks, Kelly Brant has a direct line on gaining them for CBM, making it essentially pointless for anyone else to bid on Interview.

Source: WWD.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fabien Baron Gearing Up for Fight Over Interview Magazine Bankruptcy


Fabien Baron is squaring off with Peter Brant over the recent bankruptcy of Interview magazine, and the latter seems none too pleased.

The wealthy onetime publishing mogul, who purchased Interview shortly after founder Andy Warhol’s death in 1987, this week urged a Manhattan court to reject a request by Baron for records regarding the financial goings-on of the magazine in the years preceding its sudden filing for liquidation. Baron was editorial director of Interview for a decade, only leaving earlier this year after months of working largely unpaid. He’s now the publication’s largest unsecured creditor with more than $600,000 owed to him.

Given the nature of a bankruptcy liquidation filing means an independent trustee has already been assigned to conduct something of an investigation into Interview’s operations in the months before it filed, counsel for Brant argued Baron’s request is “duplicative” and driven by “numerous baseless allegations.” At the least, Brant’s lawyer said the request should be postponed until after the trustee has completed his probe.

Baron is apparently seeking documentation that could possibly show claims of financial impropriety are, in fact, not baseless. Interview is already set to “relaunch”in September, again under the leadership of Kelly Brant. She’s Interview’s current president and Brant’s oldest daughter. Without documentation, Baron’s claims will remain just that, and if whatever Interview assets are needed for the relaunch (like trademarks, which are not included in the bankruptcy assets) are sold or transferred and put into operation, any additional investigation would be that much more convoluted and costly.

Specifically, Baron is seeking information from Brant and Singleton LLC, the holding company that was early this year assigned Brant’s $8.2 million secured claim on Interview’s assets stemming from his advances to the title (the only secured claim, leaving one to wonder if “Singleton” isn’t a bit of mocking wordplay), as well as Deborah Blasucci, Interview’s former chief financial officer who in 2016 sued the publication for wrongful termination and more than $5 million. Baron says Blasucci “may have important knowledge about the loan and the debtors finances in 2016 and prior years.”

He wants to know if any of Brant’s entities “improperly” have any of Interview’s assets, if the bankruptcy process was “manipulated” to escape responsibility for its creditor debts and “enable” another entity, like newly formed Crystal Ball Media, to take control of Interview’s assets. Baron added that Crystal Ball, a new company created by Kelly Brant for the purpose of relaunching the magazine, is “upon information and belief owned and controlled directly or indirectly by Brant, an individual that pled guilty to a felony related to tax evasion.” Brant in 1990 served a prison term of just under four months after a guilty plea related to charges of tax evasion through a shell company set up through his main business, White Birch Paper Co.

Although this sort of request by Baron, technically a type of subpoena, is often dealt with during formal creditor meetings, those have been “less than informative,” according to his motion. Kelly Brant and Christopher Brant, appearing at meetings on behalf of Interview and Brant’s two additional media holding companies going through bankruptcy, respectively, “were coy and claimed lack of memory or knowledge as to a number of factual items concerning the debtors financial affairs.”

Baron added that other answers by Brant’s children during creditor meetings have been “untrue or misleading.” While they admitted five former Interview employees are now working for Crystal Ball, Baron claims they’ve made offers to more than 20; they denied an official interest in acquiring Interview’s assets, despite sending a memo and an e-mail announcing the relaunch; and apparently dodged questions as to when and why a valuation on the magazine was performed prior to its bankruptcy filing.

Given all that, Baron said “an immediate investigation is needed to examine the relationships of the Brant entities to one another, matters regarding the insider loan and whether the Brant entities have improperly acted to interfere with the administration of the debtors assets and estates.”
wwd.com
 
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

McGinley may have to demand cash in the hand before he start shooting their next cover. I mean, I can't have any sympathy for anyone who'd get duped by the Brants this time around.

Interview Magazine Baggage Shadowing ‘Relaunch’

The magazine may want to start fresh, but some memories aren’t that short.

By Kali Hays on January 4, 2019

Interview magazine is trying to start fresh, but recent history is creating obstacles.

Last year saw the now 50-year-old magazine founded by Andy Warhol pushed into bankruptcy liquidation by Peter Brant, who owned the title during a period of financial turmoil that saw it eventually stop paying its bills and employees. Brant subsequently bought it from himself out of bankruptcy and apparently handed it over to his eldest daughter, Kelly Brant, who had been its president for several years, to be “relaunched” again under her leadership and a new holding company, Crystal Ball Media.

Although the magazine in recent months has worked to again fill out its editorial team — several former high-profile staffers like Fabien Baron left before the bankruptcy due to lack of payment, while others were cut post-bankruptcy — and now is said to be fully staffed at around 18 people, there seems to be more than a little anxiety around getting paid.

Sources told WWD that only at the tail end of 2018 did payment for freelance work on the September issue — the first issue after its May bankruptcy, meaning it was, to be clear, produced while the magazine was still technically a bankrupt entity — come through, along with some for the newest winter issue, being released now. This was after sources had expressed some doubt toward the end of the year about whether freelancers would be paid at all and a growing sense that Interview was operating much the same as it had before its bankruptcy filing, i.e. beyond its means and unorganized. Jason Nikic, Interview’s chief revenue officer since 2016 who is also now its publisher, declined to comment, citing rumors and speculation.

While it’s understood that the magazine has no invoices older than 60 days and is trying to be more transparent with staff and partners about its operations, Interview is carrying some baggage as a result of its past behavior when it comes to paying people.

From freelancers to major agencies, hundreds are stuck with unpaid bills because Peter Brant no longer wanted to float a magazine that was losing money and decided a liquidation was the best way to avoid more than $3 million in creditor debts. And freelancers especially have little recourse but to simply wait and see if they will be paid. Waiting is understandably even more trying with Interview since so many freelancers and longtime employees will never be paid in full for their previous work with the magazine.

In addition to freelancers, it’s said that Interview is relying heavily on a few unpaid interns for shoot production in particular, which can turn problematic. Condé Nast found out as much a few years ago, as did Hearst Magazines, after both were hit with now-resolved lawsuits over interns being paid below the minimum wage for work.

There’s also the issue of where Interview’s staff is working. The company is said to have been based in the coworking space Spring Place since November, when it left an office space on Greene Street in New York’s SoHo neighborhood (where it had stopped paying rent at one point last year but subsequently reached a short-term lease agreement). Other former Peter Brant titles like Art News and Art in America were also based at Greene Street, but those titles were acquired by Penske Media Corp, which also owns WWD.

Interview is said to right now be in the process of moving to a permanent office in New York, but a company representative declined to give the address. While it was rumored that the move was going to be to a building at 575 Broadway, owned by Peter Brant, or the soon to be opened Brant Foundation building in the East Village, it’s understood that the new headquarters have no affiliation with the former owner and chairman.

All this fits in with what’s said to be an effort to have a “start-up mentality” at the magazine, but there’s no getting away from the fact that Interview has been around for decades and subscribers are starting to complain on social media about not receiving their subscriptions and having no avenue to resolve their issues. Indeed, there is no contact information of any kind to be had beyond links to Interview’s social media pages. With a total print run said to be about 220,000, nearly all of which goes to subscribers and the remainder filling a small newsstand business, it seems there is a need for some kind of customer infrastructure to be put back in place. It’s also worth noting that the magazine hit a peak of nearly 945,000 Instagram followers in the wake of its bankruptcy filing, something Nikic boasted about in a memo touting the relaunch, but that number has since slipped by about 10,000. There are more than a few commenters on many posts calling out the magazine for its — hopefully — old habit of stiffing contributors and even losing loaned garments.

Some brand advertisers have also yet to return to the magazine, but there are said to be others coming in this year for the first time, like Dom Pérignon, either for branded content or typical print and digital ads. Recent issues have also featured high-profile fashion stars Virgil Abloh and Alessandro Michele, which can go a long way to helping people forget what all the fuss has been about.

But Interview’s start-up outlook doesn’t quite extend all the way through the product. So far, the magazine’s post-bankruptcy image has relied heavily on nostalgia and it’s said that a full redesign of print (set for six issues this year, with 2020 less certain) is in the future, which will push that element even more. The redesign is expected to bring back the look of Interview in its Seventies and Eighties heyday — when the artist Richard Bernstein was designing all of the covers — complete with a larger format and denser paper stock. The idea is to carve out a truly niche — and stable — space within media, instead of trying to compete with bigger titles.

Here’s hoping all of this results in everyone who works for Interview, this time around, getting paid.

WWD.com
 
What do you mean? Were high fashion advertisements in the magazine? Yes.

Anyway, when I saw this thread bumped I thought: "AGAIN!?!" :rofllaughing:
 
What do you mean? Were high fashion advertisements in the magazine? Yes.

Anyway, when I saw this thread bumped I thought: "AGAIN!?!" :rofllaughing:
Lol. Yeah, in particular did they have a relationship with Lagerfeld’s Chanel.
 
Probably. Karl was close with Sandy Brandt & Ingrid Sischy.
 
Lol. Yeah, in particular did they have a relationship with Lagerfeld’s Chanel.

Yes, Chanel was a regular advertiser in Interview magazine. They even bought back cover advertising, as recently as a decade or so ago when I was still buying the magazine regularly.
 
Just open the link, probably just a reprint
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,462
Messages
15,185,538
Members
86,322
Latest member
fashion is spinach
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->