Is the Age of the Stylist Turned EIC Over?

[Benn98]

Is the Age of the Stylist Turned EIC Over?​

By Chantal Fernandez

Their fashion magazines couldn’t be more different, but two outgoing editors-in-chief who made headlines recently — British Vogue’s Edward Enninful and i-D’s Alastair McKimm — have more in common than their surprise resignations. Both are first and foremost known as stylists.

While fashion magazines build their reputations on their photography, few of the industry’s longest-running top editors spend much of their time on set overseeing the nitty-gritty details of making images — swapping out coats or adjusting buckles and flipping collars.


And yet, many of the people who have assumed editor-in-chief positions in recent years were stylists or career fashion directors like Enninful and McKimm. They include Samira Nasr at Harper’s Bazaar, Mel Ottenberg at Interview, and Sara Moonves at W. The type of editor who, a generation ago, was more likely to work closely with the editor-in-chief of a major magazine than actually become one. (Of course, there are notable exceptions, like Carine Roitfeld, the former editor of Vogue Paris.)

The ascension of many stylists as editors-in-chief made sense in a digitally driven world. Fashion images spread widely — and for free — online, and publications with the most memorable covers or shoots win the most engagement. An executive at an independent fashion magazine told me he would rather readers follow the publication on Instagram than visit its website. His advertisers care more about the number of social-media followers than web traffic or newsstand sales.

“At the end of the day, we get judged not by the articles or the features that we put out there but by the imagery and covers — and how the f*ck you’re going to please an advertiser,” said an editor at another independent fashion magazine.

Enninful and McKimm leave their posts at the top of fashion media at a turbulent time. Layoffs are rampant across the industry, from Sports Illustrated to the Washington Post. Entrepreneurial writers are launching subscription newsletters. Condé Nast is stuck in a protracted battle with its unionized staff as it tries to cut costs. In recent years, Vogue has consolidated its global operations and started to share more photo shoots across its different regional editions. All sorts of publications are trying to figure out ways to stretch budgets, rely on advertisers less, and diversify their revenue streams with digital subscriptions and events.

“As an industry, it’s been all about savings, and saving the status quo,” said Stefano Tonchi, the former editor of W who now edits two new print magazines, Palmer and TheWrapBook.

The business pressures are also taking a toll on editorial images, budget-heavy projects increasingly controlled by advertisers. “Either the celebrity or the magazine is being paid,” said one editor. These days, many brands mandate their celebrity spokeswomen only wear their clothing on covers or refuse to lend their collections for photo shoots unless magazines follow certain rules, like replicating the way a look was styled on the runway or promising not to feature a competitor in the same shoot. (Last year on fashion covers, for example, Kate Moss wore Saint Laurent, Kendall Jenner wore Miu Miu, and Hunter Schafer wore Mugler — all brands those women simultaneously fronted in advertising campaigns.) The results can be boring. “Do I really want to see another picture of Miley Cyrus in Gucci?” said the editor. “We are bombarded by content from the social-media platforms, day in and day out, but hardly anything is remarkable or memorable.”

When i-D announced on social media this week that it was temporarily pausing its operations, many readers assumed the magazine would soon disappear. They’ve seen the same routine before. (Remember Love? Condé Nast insisted the magazine would continue after its founder, stylist Katie Grand, left in 2020. She then started another magazine, Perfect.) But according to a source with knowledge of the situation at i-D, the magazine’s new owner, model Karlie Kloss, has indicated her ambitions to grow the magazine, not let it wither. She will need an editor willing to put in the time and energy to do more with less and wrangle advertisers and talent. Someone like McKimm — who also styles for Gucci and Marc Jacobs, among other brands — likely has neither the time nor the interest.

As an editor-in-chief, “you are the mascot for the whole thing, and a lot of fashion is still based on showing up,” said Laura Brown, a media consultant and former editor of InStyle. She made a point to be on set for most of her major shoots at the magazine, but her travel schedule sometimes made it impossible. “I loved knowing you had a cover in the room,” she said. “I don’t miss going to shows in Europe for two months a year and having to go hurtle in to see the Italian cashmere advertiser for eight minutes to see if you can get money.”

The Cut

 

[tigerrouge]

According to Conde Nast, the age of the editor is over, no matter what else you were doing before anyone asked you to "do more with less" - starting with the status of your own job title.

 

[Benn98]

I have always maintained that stylists don't make very good EICs. There are maybe 1 or 2 exceptions but for the most part they always have a blind spot. The point about stylist EICs having to keep advertisers happy was brought up years ago on here. It's incredible that none of them realised that it would be a reality when one of the stylist-to-EIC poster girls famously 'stepped down' after that Balenciaga scandal. That showed how the lines are blur when you're both stylist and editor.

Of course aside from having to worry about advertisers, stylists are also not journalists/writers. They don't understand or know how to map out an entire magazine that is not a vanity project, but something practical for a group of people to consume. Everything is not about fashion editorials and art direction. There's the content too - from long-form features to small little snippets, every little bit forms part of an overall identity that is built around the lifestyle of those who read the magazine. The obvious response to this used to be 'make sure your team is good' but that's not enough. Direction starts from the top.

The fact that the 'executive' that was interviewed for this story claims that advertisers are more focused on social media means that they don't value newsstand and website content. Why is that? Are magazines building a shrine around Instagram in the hopes of being seen? See, a good editor would be able to pick up on this and invest in good quality content for their site or magazine and do less on social media. Emphasis on 'good quality!'

 

[aracic]

Every magazine company that values its digital presence over print media is bound to crash and burn, deservedly so. It's very much a stay-in-your-lane sort of situation. We're a digital generation, you have to have a presence, you have to keep up with it. But you can't put all your focus into it. Differentiate the content you post online and the content you print in the magazines, because if you want to keep a magazine alive, you've got to keep it in print. Digital format simply doesn't work, any publication that's gone from print to digital is as good as defunct, and their feeble attempts at staying afloat are pitiful. No one cares to engage with InStyle or Glamour anymore. Five years down the road, the new fashion kids won't even know what Allure is.

I think we've had several examples of great stylists who proved that they can run a great magazine. Perhaps there are certain creative qualities that a stylist brings to that role, but I still believe that someone better versed in running a magazine as a whole makes a better fit. However, I don't think we're headed in that direction unfortunately. Fashion industry is polluted with celebrities and influencers who have no deeper understanding or care for fashion, but hold a lot of power thanks to their following. We have celebrities posing as designers, dabbling in styling, buying whole magazines. And I can easily see a future where top positions are held by people whose merit is simply based on view numbers. Social media gives people this illusion that they can do anything, because when they pull off something mediocre, other mediocre people will flock together in praise, engagement grows, numbers rise and egos swell. And alas, a generation of shallow, lacklustre creators is born. I don't think that this could change for better, as long as we are all collectively engaging in social media the way we do. It is the primary source of media that most people consume, so I guess it is only natural that all the advertisers and editors want to invest in it. But they're overlooking the fact that no matter how much they invest, the average life span of a viral (fashion) moment is probably no longer than three days. How sustainable is that in the long run? How many viral moments do you need to stay afloat? And how do you translate virality into a magazine?

 

[fenty]

They always seem to forget about the fashion aspect of the magazine and solely rely on the casting

 

[blueorchid]

Actually, I don't think the era of the stylist EIC is over. Who are they going to hire instead? Fashion journalists? I mean, the field just doesn't have the same depth as it used to. It's a pretty dismal future for fashion magazines out there, most* stylists don't have the depth or vision required to run a magazine.

*not all, don't come for me with examples