The Business of Magazines | Page 128 | the Fashion Spot

The Business of Magazines

Lol, only a pleasure, Phuel! I find it mind-boggling that an accessible fashion title such as Flare would struggle to keep afloat in a country like Canada. Your GDP and individual socio-economic profile is well ahead of, Ukraine, for instance(no offense!!), who's got Vogue, Elle, Harper's etc. So there should be enough wealth flowing in and out, and, ultimately, a greater motivation for luxury purchases. Is it some sort of messed-up inferiority thinking where Canadians are buying more into the credence of foreign titles (probably they don't even regard US Vogue as a 'foreign' title?), than they would into their own? I'm sure you've got great indies but when you look at the absence of mainstream fashion magazines, the issue certainly sounds greater than just Flare's poor management, doesn't it?

I've often wondered why there isn't more Canadien editions of international magazines as well but I think that being so close to the US American magazines are too readily available and I assume that pop culture in Canada is probably the same as the US so there's really little need but maybe a Canadian would be better off commenting. I just don't think any Canadian would consider an American magazine as "foreign".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ Yes, A.D.C., that would be the general attitude. There's more to it, of course...
 
Lol, only a pleasure, Phuel! I find it mind-boggling that an accessible fashion title such as Flare would struggle to keep afloat in a country like Canada. Your GDP and individual socio-economic profile is well ahead of, Ukraine, for instance(no offense!!), who's got Vogue, Elle, Harper's etc. So there should be enough wealth flowing in and out, and, ultimately, a greater motivation for luxury purchases. Is it some sort of messed-up inferiority thinking where Canadians are buying more into the credence of foreign titles (probably they don't even regard US Vogue as a 'foreign' title?), than they would into their own? I'm sure you've got great indies but when you look at the absence of mainstream fashion magazines, the issue certainly sounds greater than just Flare's poor management, doesn't it?

I mean, in a sense, American magazines simply aren't "foreign" though. Like, our cultures aren't THAT different. And really these Canadian magazines AREN'T as good as the competitors, which is a cycle because if no one buys them then they'll be awful, etc. We might have a high GDP, but I really don't think that rich Canadians have the same type of wealth or make the same type of purchases that the oligarch class in Ukraine can make. There aren't even that many luxury stores his country anyway. I was browsing the local Holt Renfrew on the weekend, actually, and the selection was DREADFUL. If Canadians are buying luxury clothes, they're probably buying them in the US to begin with.

Not to mention that all of the Canadian fashion magazines are sooo centralized in Toronto. I'd sooner pick up an issue of Vogue and read about New York than I would read about Toronto. Although, Fashion does do a better job at including other regions of Canada.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A source showed me the circulations of Vogue Paris for the first half of 2015 and surprisingly, each month saw a noticeable increase from 2014 (with the exception of 1 issue which I'll leave for you to guess)! Alt seems to be doing it right and the French public seems to be liking her new direction
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A source showed me the circulations of Vogue Paris for the first half of 2015 and surprisingly, each month saw a noticeable increase from 2014 (with the exception of 1 issue which I'll leave for you to guess)! Alt seems to be doing it right and the French public seems to be liking her new direction

I don't think it's Inés or Charlotte, because they're national treasures. Couldn't be March either, because they're perrennial best sellers. My guess is Liya or Anna. Liya's cover was a mess, too much going on, I skipped it because of that very reason. And Anna looked a bit crazy on her Feb cover. But she ended up getting August again which wouldn't make any sense if February tanked, so my guess is Liya.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
November 27, 2015

Susannah Frankel Named Editor in Chief of AnOther Magazine

By SAMANTHA CONTI

ANOTHER EDITOR: Susannah Frankel has been named editor in chief of AnOther magazine, a division of Britain’s Dazed Media and will take up her new role in January.

She has been fashion features director of AnOther since its launch in 2001, and a regular contributor to its sister publication, Dazed & Confused, since 1998.

Most recently, Frankel was fashion director of Grazia U.K., which she joined in 2012. She was previously fashion editor of the Independent from 1999 to 2012; and The Guardian from 1996 to 1999.

Frankel’s first book, “Visionaries: Interviews with Fashion Designers,” was published in 2001 by Victoria & Albert Publishing and she has also contributed to books on Lee Alexander McQueen and to exhibition catalogs for Dries Van Noten, Balenciaga, Martin Margiela, Viktor & Rolf, Peter Jensen, Hussein Chalayan and Yohji Yamamoto.

She is currently working a book with Stephen Jones that is due to be published in autumn 2016.

Jefferson Hack, chief executive officer and cofounder of Dazed Media, said Frankel “has been part of the Dazed Media family since the beginning,” and will be a key player as the group drives forward its commitment to “creativity, originality and innovation.”

Nancy Waters continues in her role as editor of AnOther and Natalie Rigg as editor of anothermag.com.

Source: wwd.com
 
Is Conde Nast in financial trouble? Vanity Fair is getting slimmer and slimmer. I loved their long-form pieces, but since October or so it's been two or three nice long articles, and then nothing.
 
I don't know if this is the place for it, but has anyone noticed that the January issue of Cosmopolitan actually reads January 2015 on the side, instead of 2016...I mean that's a big eff up, is it not? Especially for a big publication like Cosmo? I'll provide images if requested
 
I don't know if this is the place for it, but has anyone noticed that the January issue of Cosmopolitan actually reads January 2015 on the side, instead of 2016...I mean that's a big eff up, is it not? Especially for a big publication like Cosmo? I'll provide images if requested

Ooh, pic please! ;)
 
I mean that's a big eff up, is it not? Especially for a big publication like Cosmo? I'll provide images if requested

Didn't Vogue Paris do the same with their February 2006 issue? They have 2005 on it, if I'm not mitaken. (I once asked a seller to send me the feb 2005 issue and he sent me the 2006 one, but I couldn't even complain cuz both had the same month and year on them.)
 
A sales update (wwd.com):http://wwd.com/media-news):

The Kardashian/Jenner Daughters Flag on Newsstand

The ubiquitous Kardashians continued their media reign last year with dozens of magazine covers, a set of new apps, more television airtime and more attention from the fashion industry. Yet despite their popularity, the Kardashians haven’t exactly been able to translate their enigmatic brand into newsstand gold for magazines.

While the newsstand is quickly deteriorating — MagNet characterized annual declines in the double-digits and said last year that it estimated newsstand magazine sales in 2015 to be $2.5 billion, which is just about half of what was generated in 2007 — editors continue to search for cover stars to stem the losses.

So who better than the Kardashians? The clan and its equally everywhere siblings the Jenners appeared on numerous magazine covers in 2015, including Cosmopolitan, Allure, Glamour, GQ, Rolling Stone, Teen Vogue, Women’s Health, Complex, Interview, Paper and Redbook. WWD tracked available newsstand sales data from the Alliance for Audited Media and found that many magazines saw a decline in copies sold when they featured the family members.

Cosmopolitan, the largest U.S. women’s magazine, turned to the Kardashians twice last year in hopes that the family’s elusive charm could give it a much-needed sales bump. For the first half of 2015, Cosmo’s total single-copy sales hovered at 531,086, and weren’t helped by its February cover star, Kylie Jenner. Although Jenner has emerged as one of the most popular members of clan Kardashian, the issue delivered 495,423 in sales.

Still, that was better than Cosmo’s November issue, featuring all the Kardashian/Jenner daughters plus matriarch Kris. That cover, which dubbed the reality stars “America’s First Family,” ruffled a few feathers on social media — not to mention in the corridors of Hearst Tower.

At a recent luncheon, editor in chief Joanna Coles defended the cover and its provocative tagline, explaining: “People accused me of putting them on the cover to ‘sell a few magazines.’ Are you out of your mind? It sold f–k millions!”

Not so much. The issue garnered 436,500 in total copy sales, as well as almost 8,000 comments on Instagram, many of which were critical of the cover and tagline. (Nonetheless, the image of the cover nabbed about 35,500 likes).

During the lunch, Gayle King, editor at large of Cosmo sibling O, The Oprah Magazine, shared her disdain, interrupting Coles and adding: “I said I didn’t like them being called the first family.”

WWD reached out to Coles for further comment Tuesday, but the editor was unavailable. It should be noted that while the issue was one of Cosmo’s worst sellers of the year, it still sold more copies than Vanity Fair’s big July Caitlyn Jenner cover, which sold 432,923 copies — although it ignited a flood of traffic to the VF Web site as well as a whirlwind of coverage online, on TV and across other media.

But back to Cosmo, which jumped at the chance to get the six family members on its cover, in part for social media pull and advertising dollars. Cosmo, which feted its 50th birthday with the Kardashian family, is said to have garnered 9 billion impressions on a live story that it partnered on with Covergirl for Snapchat. The live story of the Oct. 13 party was shared on Snapchat’s main landing page. It is believed that Cosmo’s Snapchat Discover channel grabs about 3 to 4 million views a day, and is one of the platform’s best performers.

As for other titles, Condé Nast’s Allure sold 81,385 copies with its March Kendall Jenner cover, which is on par with its first half average of 85,249 copies sold. The model also appeared on the cover of big brother GQ in May, and sold 83,202 copies, which was off about 10,000 copies from its first-half average.

Glamour registered newsstand sales of 164,918 for its July Kim Kardashian cover, which was 14.6 percent off its first half average of 193,108 copies. Teen Vogue outpaced its first half average by about 1,000 copies with its May Kylie Jenner cover that sold 48,237 copies on the newsstand. Meanwhile, Rolling Stone got a lift from its racy cover of Kim Kardashian with 89,100 copies sold, as did Women’s Health, which sold 265,965 copies for its Khloé Kardashian cover, depicting the reality star in an unbuttoned chambray shirt that revealed what she called her “revenge body.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although this makes me a bit happy, they shouldn't put all the blame to the cover star. The quality of the magazine still plays a huge factor.

2015 Cosmo was a MESS. No wonder sales were down. So was Allure.

But I must give it to miss Kylie though. She still managed to get reach 500k. I thought it was only 350k. And what did they expect with that Family Cover. It wasn't oozing the Cosmo identity and the tagline was indeed off
 
I'm not too sure what this article was trying to say here. Yes, for Cosmo it was a loss, but it seems every other title which gave them a cover just about broke even. To sell 10k less than the average isn't that bad IMO, even 1k is quite ok. Still surprised that the Rolling Stone readers lapped up that Kim cover by Terry!!! Not a good sign.
 
I'm not too sure what this article was trying to say here. Yes, for Cosmo it was a loss, but it seems every other title which gave them a cover just about broke even. To sell 10k less than the average isn't that bad IMO, even 1k is quite ok. Still surprised that the Rolling Stone readers lapped up that Kim cover by Terry!!! Not a good sign.

This. The title made it seem like they bombed on the newsstands while the numbers suggest that they've divested to normal celeb sales status.
 
Maybe that's what the article is saying... that they don't sell much more or less than most other celebrities. They're neither newsstand gold or poison.
 
So editors always point out to their tens of millions of social media followers but what good is having 50 million IG followers if it doesn't even translate to an extra couple thousand issues sold? And while they might not be newsstand "poison" the fact that they sold below average for the most part tells me that they are useless at getting their "followers" to shift copies at all. Basically the same readers who usually pick up those magazines are the ones who picked up the Kardashian issues. If anything a few thousand opted to forgo that months issue. If you have 50 millions followers you encourage to go out and pick up your issue how do you end up selling even 1000 copies less than the average?!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah the point of the article was to point out that they're not as big as people think they are. Being the most followed on social media doesn't mean you'll sell out your covers. The media coverage and the amount of PR they put in, gives the illusion everyone loves and adores them, but it's not reality.

I can see 2016 being the first nail in the coffin for the Kardashians fame. Their TV show will probably get cancelled this year too, based on ratings.
 
I believe there was a story posted in this thread recently where an editor (?) said they have tons of followers, but they find that these followers don't actually subscribe to or buy the magazine.
 
The craziest part is that this information won't stop people from using their alleged selling power to justify them being on magazines (and generally being inserted in fashion altogether) that frankly could go to someone more interesting/suitable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,283
Messages
15,294,710
Members
89,218
Latest member
redenderma
Back
Top