The Business of Magazines

[djowodjo30]

I think the problem Is people or the editor forget that not all followers coming from US only thats why the number of selling and followers doesnt match.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

I think the problem Is people or the editor forget that not all followers coming from US only thats why the number of selling and followers doesnt match.

And they're forgetting to account for all of the spambots that follow them!

 

[Chanelcouture09]

Social Media isn't a real representation of readers or loyal followers, for publications or retail - I know from experience that huge brands actually pay for a lot of their followers, they aren't loyal customers of the brands. So although a publication like Cosmo may have a few million followers (?) That won't speak for even half of who is reading, so they may get 8K comments, but how many of those 8K comments are actual buyers, In a way, it is like reading comments on here about publications and ad campaigns, more often than not the people commenting aren't the buyers of the subject.

 

[nyc_art_style]

Multiple sources have confirmed to The Daily that massive layoffs occurred today at Allure. We are hearing up to 11 people including longtime creative director Paul Cavaco, fashion director Siobhan Bonnouvrier, executive editor Kristin Perrotta, senior market editor Jennifer Yee, managing editor Felice Kaplan, and public relations director Megan Carolan were let go earlier today. These layoffs come as little surprise after founding editor Linda Wells was let go in November last year. Her successor was Nylon Media’s former editor in chief and marketing officer Michelle Lee.
We’ve reached out to the Condé Nast PR department for comment, and a company spokesperson wrote via e-mail: “Michelle [Lee] has a clear vision and strategy to grow and expand Allure in print, digital and video. We will be announcing new additions to the creative team shortly.”

Fashion Week Daily

So Paul, and Siobhan are leaving. Jarrod Lacks left some time ago, and of course Linda Wells is gone as well.

Rachael Wang has been named Fashion Director.

I feel like it's an end of era for Allure, but also I'm very excited for the future.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ It is an end of an era! Allure did what it was meant to do, report and focus on beauty, damn well. It will be itneresting if it can survive without Wells and Cavaco, it will certianly be different.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

I'm not surprised. A new EIC means a lot of changes. I've actually liked most of Conde Nast's recent redesigns. Both Self and Lucky were major improvements imo. It's sad that they didn't exactly work out, especially, of course, lucky.

 

[WilliamsLe010919]

Grace left VOGUE!

NEW YORK, United States — A wave of change continues to reshape fashion media. BoF has learned that Grace Coddington, who has been creative director of American Vogue for nearly 30 years, is stepping away from the role, effective immediately.

read more:
http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...p-down-as-creative-director-of-american-vogue

 

[Phuel]

^^^ That’s awesome and she’s awesome. Like Rei, Grace has so much fire in her yet— what an ideal pairing. American Vogue seems to be the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel to her, I’m glad she’s able to flex her creative muscles outside of this constantly dumbing-down to appeal to the masses publication.

Thanks Williams for the article.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

That's more shocking than Meisel not shooting every Vogue Italia cover anymore and like Vogue Italia I think American Vogue will also suffer as a result.

 

[Benn98]

And now, for some men's magazine mud-slinging......
You'll note that this article was penned by the Maxim guys themselves, and not a third-party outlet, presumably in retaliation to a report posted by GQ, which I cannot seem to find anywhere. Alessandra's cover by Gilles ended up being quite a hit for them. I'm really surprised that their digital version outsells GQ each month, but the Maxim guy is probably his mid-20's so that makes sense. The real shocker is Esquire's low turnover.

Maxim Is Officially Number One in Newsstand Sales in 2015 vs. GQ, Esquire & Men’s Journal

Maxim Staff
Feb 5, 2016

NEW YORK, February 5, 2016 — Maxim, the leading voice in men’s luxury lifestyle, sold 101,805 print single newsstand copies and 144,105 combined print and digital copies in December 2015 – more than any competitor sold any month of the entire year (including GQ), based on data from the Alliance for Audited Media. The issue featured entrepreneur and supermodel Alessandra Ambrosio on the cover in a photograph shot by Gilles Bensimon, who is now Maxim’s Special Creative Advisor.

Since February 2014, Maxim has been undergoing a rapid transformation with a focus on luxury, achieving industry-leading success that includes:

• Maxim readers with an annual household income of over $250,000 increased by 37.1% in the period between 2013 (before the luxury repositioning) and 2015 (after the luxury repositioning), according to MRI. (229,000 Maxim readers in 2015 vs. 167,000 in 2013)

• Maxim readers with an annual household income of over $200,000 increased by 9% in the period between 2013 (before the luxury repositioning) and 2015 (after the luxury repositioning), according to MRI. (460,000 Maxim readers in 2015 vs. 421,000 in 2013)

• Maxim has the largest Facebook following in the men’s luxury lifestyle magazine category, with 2,705,293 likes (GQ comes in second with 1,883,539 likes).

In 2015, Maxim set the newsstand record, successfully repositioned itself as a luxury magazine and grew its high-income readership. As an aspirational and inspirational brand projecting style and sophistication, Maxim expects to continue to attract a higher income demographic with future audited data.

“Because of GQ’s release earlier today, we can now officially proclaim that Maxim irrefutably outperformed every men’s magazine in its category, including GQ. In fact, no Maxim competitors (including GQ, Esquire and Men’s Journal) had single-copy newsstand sales over 100,000. Only Maxim holds that record, and we are grateful to our readers who have responded so positively to our repositioning,” said Guillaume Bruneau, Art & Design Director at Maxim.

Here is a month-by-month breakdown of 2015 single-copy newsstand only sales for Maxim, GQ, Esquire and Men’s Journal:



Here is a month-by-month breakdown of 2015 single-copy print and digital sales for Maxim and GQ:



As filed with Alliance for Audited Media

Source: http://www.maxim.com/news/win

 

[marsnoop2]

Apparently Playboy is changing everything up and no longer showing off fully nude women.

http://jezebel.com/playboy-loses-the-playboy-within-the-magazine-will-no-1736172099
http://jezebel.com/playboys-first-non-nude-centerfold-is-dree-hemingway-a-1757055338

 

[Oxymore]

^its been a while since they announced that.

 

[Benn98]

Fashion Magazines Look to Familiar Faces for Cover Models

By KATHERINE ROSMAN
FEB. 3, 2016

If you missed Taraji P. Henson on the cover of the February issue of Elle, don’t despair. You can sift through the stacks at the nail salon and find her on the cover of Allure, from last July. Or on the August cover of W. Or Glamour (October). Or Essence (November).

Ms. Henson, the actress behind the saucy, animal-print-loving, ex-con, mama-bear, hip-hop manager and muse Cookie Lyon on “Empire,” is not just the breakout star of the hit Fox network soap opera but also the current queen of the fashion magazine.

As even casual readers and newsstand passers-by know, certain actresses, for a few months or many, can become fashion-magazine darlings. Over the years, there has been Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Aniston, Gwyneth Paltrow, to name a few. (And before actresses took over, models like Cindy Crawford, Niki Taylor and Carol Alt reigned.)

Another familiar face in 2015 was Reese Witherspoon, with two covers of Glamour alone. And she is starting 2016 strong, on the February issue of Harper’s Bazaar.

Ms. Henson and Ms. Witherspoon represent what have become default options for mainstream fashion magazines, whose covers were once opportunities to surprise, as with Diana Vreeland’s 1959 Bazaar cover showing a collage of gloves or Anna Wintour’s debut cover for Vogue in 1988, with the belly-baring Israeli model Michaela Bercu.

Now, readers can generally rely on seeing one of two possibilities: the new star or the beloved standby. The standby “becomes a reader’s best friend,” said Joanna Coles, editor in chief of Cosmopolitan (whose March cover will feature Jessica Alba, seen last fall on the covers of Self and Allure). Editors hope that they will be able to revisit the same celebrities as cover models as they get married, have children, overcome heartbreak or have career breakthroughs like Ms. Witherspoon.

“Reese is a tremendous example of someone with star power evolving into a producer,” Ms. Coles said. “Readers are invested in relationships with these women, and we want to see how they grow.” (Cosmo’s best-selling cover of last year was the one with Cameron Diaz, who used to model and has also produced and written a health guide for women, “The Body Book.”)

Magazines also want to claim freshly minted celebrities, Ms. Coles said. “Taraji is in an incredibly hot show, and everybody wants a bit of that for their reader,” she said.

Even as the newsstand sales of magazines continue to diminish as a significant source of revenue, that part of the business matters a lot, said Cyndi Stivers, a veteran magazine editor who now consults for media brands, because newsstand sales are by far more profitable than subscriptions. “It’s critical to think who is going to give you a bump if you possibly can get one,” she said, and once editors “hit one that works, they tend to go back to the well as much as possible until it’s dry.”

Many editors would love to take a risk on an up-and-comer. But since print magazines sit around for weeks, while the fashion and celebrity websites that are competing with them for views can quickly replace underperforming content, the stakes are high. “There is risk aversion, and it is understandable,” said Janice Min, the president and chief creative officer of the Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group, whose flagship publications are reliant on subscriptions and digital consumers. “Winning that game still is important, you want to have someone relevant.”

Ms. Min, who knows the highs and lows of newsstand sales thanks to her former stewardship of Us Weekly, added, “one bad sale can have a big impact on your brand. I feel for everyone who has to make these decisions.”

Fashion magazines are often hampered by editors who are booking celebrities for cover shoots sometimes six months before the magazines are to appear on newsstands. “With the long lead time, the gamble the magazines are taking is on those who have clean lives and won’t do anything stupid,” said Steven Cohn, editor in chief of the Media Industry Newsletter. “These are safe and familiar faces.”

But though arguably less interesting for readers, this imprimatur of popular acceptability remains an important career marker for subjects, Ms. Coles said. “They get tired of being in a slide show list of 20 other celebrities who wore a red dress,” she said. “It’s a very special moment for a star, especially a young star. It’s something of a crowning.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/fashion/fashion-magazines-look-to-familiar-faces-for-cover-models.html?_r=0

 

[t-rex]

Marie Claire, in addition to Elle, has also changed its physical size. Both magazines now measure 9 inches by 10 7/8 inches (American version)

 

[Deleted member 116957]

Random question, is Muse magazine still around? I was looking at an old editorial from that magazine online not too long ago and realized I haven't seen a new issue from them in ages?

 

[Creative]

^Sure. The S/S 2016 issue is out already. It is quite boring, though. All about newbies.

 

[Starry]

Does anyone know if UK Elle Collections has folded or not? From what I could recall, the last issue was Spring/Summer 2015 and there is no update in their website since then.

 

[Benn98]

This Might Be Why You Get Teen Vogue Without Subscribing
Erika Adams Feb 19, 2016, 10:00a

"Who signed me up for a subscription of glamour? This is the last thing I want," a not-so-pleased Glamour subscriber tweeted last month. Another irate subscriber filmed herself throwing her unwanted copy of Glamour in the trash. Someone else recently launched this question out into the ether: "why did i all of a sudden start getting a subscription of teen vogue without subscribing to one HMM????" Within seconds, other women were replying with their own tales of Teen Vogue issues popping up in their mail out of nowhere.

When magazines drop on your doorstep without warning, it probably has to do with where you’ve been shopping recently. Mainstream magazines — especially those owned by Conde Nast — have been really stepping up their efforts lately to slip in free magazines with orders at popular women’s retailers, and while they technically have to alert customers that the free magazine is coming, not everyone is getting a warning.

"Right now, Asos is giving out free subscriptions to Teen Vogue with any purchase over $40.
"

The marketing concept isn’t new: magazines have been giving out free subscriptions for a long time under the umbrella of "partnership sales," or subscriptions that are bundled in with another product or service. Right now, Asos is giving out free subscriptions to Teen Vogue with any purchase over $40, Sephora has offered free subscriptions to Cosmopolitan, Harper’s Bazaar, and more with qualifying purchases, Forever 21 has given out free subscriptions to Self, Teen Vogue and Glamour; and Birchbox sweetened deals last year with a free subscription to Glamour, Vogue, or People.

According to the Alliance for Audited Media, which tracks this type of data across hundreds of magazines, partnership sales have gone through the roof in the past ten years, especially at titles like Teen Vogue, Glamour, and Self.

Teen Vogue counted 1,183,316 paid subscriptions on average per issue in 2005, and 4,489 of those paid subscriptions were categorized as partnership sales. In 2015, Teen Vogue had an average of 893,816 paid subscriptions for each issue, and 319,230 of those subscriptions were categorized as partnership sales. In other words, about one in every three Teen Vogue subscriptions were bundled into other purchases as a free giveaway last year.

"About one in every three Teen Vogue subscriptions were bundled into other purchases as a free giveaway last year.
"

The numbers are similar at other Conde Nast magazines, particularly ones that have been struggling to stay afloat. Self had a monthly average of 1,067,092 paid subscriptions in 2005, 14,957 of which were due to partnership sales. In 2015, Self counted an average of 1,329,617 paid subscriptions and 549,308 of those subscriptions came from partnership sales (just over 40% of the total subscriptions!). A similar story unfolded at Allure, where a monthly average of 28,723 subscriptions due to partnership sales in 2005 ballooned into 298,098 in 2015, while total subscriptions crept up from 758,092 to 1,046,458 over the same ten-year span. Glamour recorded a monthly average of 43,551 subscriptions due to partnership sales in 2005, which expanded into a monthly average of 515,874 subscriptions due to partnership sales in 2015.

Outside of Conde Nast, the numbers are much less drastic. Hearst’s Elle brought in 747,258 average monthly paid subscriptions in 2005, and 19,586 of those subscriptions fell under partnership sales. In 2015, Elle counted 949,329 average monthly paid subscriptions, and 50,700 of those subscriptions fell under partnership sales. At Seventeen, 91,380 of its 1,842,906 average monthly subscribers last year came from partnership sales. And at Time Inc.’s InStyle, 57,332 of its 1,372,598 average monthly subscribers came from partnership sales last year.

It’s pretty widely accepted that mainstream print magazines aren’t doing so hot right now, especially in Conde Nast’s portfolio. So why give away all those subscriptions for free?

"So why give away all those subscriptions for free?
"

"The people that are in charge of selling subscriptions, they have two jobs," says Rebecca Sterner, a publishing consultant who’s worked with a variety of magazine publishers. "One job is to sell as many subscriptions and newsstand copies as they can to meet their budget, and the other one is to deliver the number of copies that advertisers are paying for."

This puts those people in an interesting situation, says Sterner. "If it was just about, ‘We’re going to sell as many subscriptions as we can,’ then they wouldn’t have to worry about anything else. But it’s, ‘No, we have to sell as many subscriptions as we can, and we still have to meet advertisers expectations.’

The main reason that magazines spend money on partnership sales is to keep up advertising revenue and meet those expectations, explains Dipayan Biswas, the editor of the Journal of Consumer Marketing.

"Most newspapers and magazines earn most of their revenue from advertising," says Biswas. "Not so much from the subscriptions. So even if it’s a free subscription, they can actually claim a readership of X number and that X includes the number of free subscriptions, and they can charge a higher advertising rate based on their subscription level."

""Even if it’s a free subscription, they can actually claim a readership of X number."
"

So, even though Self’s paid subscriber base has largely only increased over the past ten years due to those freebie magazine subscriptions, it can still tell advertisers that its subscriber base has grown and can charge appropriately for advertising."It’s actually a good business model to have, like you give away the magazine for free but you actually make money from advertising because you can now claim higher circulations," says Biswas. "And it would be a fair claim because the subscription count is higher even though some of those subscriptions may be free."

According to AAM, publishers that engage in partnership sales must spell out to the consumer what is going on. During the transaction, consumers have to know that the magazine has been included in the order, the value of the magazine, and that they can receive a refund on the subscription if they don’t want the magazine.

In practice, the lines seem way less clear. It’s easy to find plenty of confused first-time subscribers who don’t know how they got on certain mailing lists, and there’s Reddit threads dedicated to figuring out why this magazine landed on that doorstep. One guy’s mysterious Teen Vogue subscription followed him through three different address changes. Some are okay with the new, free magazine appearing out of thin air, but others are definitely not. (Conde Nast declined to comment on its subscription marketing strategies.)

There’s a loophole here, too, that at least one intrepid Redditor has tried to spell out. Since the consumers technically have to be given the option of a refund on the magazine, and they didn’t pay for it in the first place, it is possible to get $10 or $12 off of the consumer’s original order. For example, Sephora offered a free Cosmopolitan subscription to customers who spent over $25 with the retailer. The subscription is worth $10, so, if the customer doesn’t mind filling out a rebate form and waiting six to eight weeks for the refund, the actual order would come down to $15.

Overall, the majority of paid subscriber bases still come from readers who pay a yearly fee for their magazines, but the popularity of partnership sales, at least with titles including Teen Vogue, Self, Glamour, Allure, and Vogue, has grown dramatically in recent years.

"[The magazines] have a mixed portfolio," says Biswas. "They charge prices to people who are willing to pay and then for people who they think might be price sensitive or might be willing to switch later, they give it to them for free, and create a higher subscription level. But it definitely helps with the subscription claims and that in turn helps increase ad revenue."

Source: http://www.racked.com/2016/2/19/11052468/subscriptions-teen-vogue-self-asos-glamour

 

[Benn98]

Exclusive: Keith Kelly on the State of the Media
By Ashley Baker | February 14, 2016

The New York Post’s storied media columnist Keith Kelly has been inspiring fear and awe in the hearts of insiders for the past 18 years. With so much tumult rocking our industry to the core, isn’t it about time we asked him some questions for a change?

Is native advertising the only way people are really making money right now?
It’s not the only way—the paywall works in some cases. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have paywalls; USA Today doesn’t. It depends on how specialized your content is. Mass content that you can get anywhere is very hard to get people to want to pay for. Business sites have a much better option, because of the fear and greed factor—people are afraid to not have the information. A consumer site—what the Kardashians are up to—doesn’t really impact your life. It’s interesting, and it’s a page view, but if you don’t have it, your life goes on. If you don’t know the price of oil up to a nanosecond, you could lose a fortune.

What’s the solution for fashion titles?
Fashion still seems to love print, because color and texture transfer much better to a print vehicle than a digital vehicle. Mode Media has far more traffic than Vogue.com, but Vogue.com is where [advertisers] want to be—there is an element of paying for premium content in the fashion world that they have built into their business model. Advertisers aren’t looking for the lowest common denominator—they’re looking for a showplace, the place with the most impact, the most prestige. Most ad agencies and advertisers secretly know that a banner ad is really the equivalent of the old-fashioned print junk mail. A 2 or 3 percent response rate is considered wonderful in junk mail. The reality is that’s kind of the response rate you get in banner ads, and that’s what’s driving the price of them down.

What’s going on at Condé Nast?
It’s the same thing for everybody—they’re hoping print will stabilize while digital revenue takes off. So far, unfortunately, the digital increase, percentage-wise, is not offsetting the print decline.

What do you make of the merger between Hearst and Condé Nast for business services?
Back-shop stuff. It’s a good cost-saving thing—they’ll get better pricing, they’ll lay off some people. You’re probably going to see more of that as the industry consolidates. Don’t forget, these companies have had back-shop deals for years, and they’re not going to spill over into any friendliness on the editorial or advertising side.

What do you make of the rumors that the Newhouses could be looking to divest of Condé Nast?
It’s believable. They’ll deny all those rumors up until the day they’re no longer deniable. One thing they are clearly doing is putting a lot more emphasis on their digital venture field. They’re now looking for outside venture capitalists to join them. They recognize that the newspaper business, which once funded everything, is not going to do that anymore. Their point of view is that if the newspapers don’t make money, we’re out of the game—so we see sweeping consolidations from Michigan to New Orleans, where they’re dropping print editions. They are rumored to be doing the same thing with New Jersey newspapers. Parade magazine, which was once a cash cow for them, was sold. They have major, major problems, and I think the new generation realizes that they’re never going to be able to replicate what they did. They could, conceivably, sell. I think right now, they’re in the midst of diversifying and getting digital and tech-savvy.

Could Hearst emerge as an interesting buyer for Condé Nast?
I don’t know if they’d want to gobble it up en masse, because so many of the titles are head-to-head competitors in strong strategic areas. I don’t think there’d be any anti-trust issues, but Elle and Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar—okay, you can have two of them, but if you have three of them in the same company…I don’t know. W would be in there…I don’t know how much support you would get, and how much it would blunt your competitive advantage.

Do you think it’s the right time to make replacements at the top of the masthead on the edit side? Let’s talk David Granger, for example.
For years, David Granger was supposedly an independent cowboy. He didn’t really like to integrate into this new way of doing stuff. If they were doing a cover story on George Clooney, he wouldn’t set up an advertising luncheon with George Clooney. He wasn’t that big into the red carpet and TV appearances, carrying the flag of Hearst and Esquire. He was a throwback to an old-school editor, where he did his job, and he did it well, but maybe he didn’t play the hierarchical corporate game as well as some of the others.

What do you think about Jay Fielden taking over at Esquire?
One of the problems with David Granger was he wasn’t a fashion-forward kind of guy; he was a man’s man—cigars, whiskey, sports. Fashion, no. He didn’t have enough. Could Esquire be a remake of Men’s Vogue? I hope it doesn’t go that far, but it will definitely migrate more in that direction.

Were you bummed when Details folded?
I’m sorry to see anything go. People you’ve known and covered who are now out of work—it’s worse for some of the midline reporters and staffers than it is for the editor in chief. You hope he has a good severance package and he’s put money aside for a rainy day—it happens to everybody.

Which editors are doing a good job these days?
[Cosmopolitan’s] Joanna Coles and [The Hollywood Reporter’s] Janice Min are doing a phenomenal job—they’re multiplatform, they don’t mind carrying the flag, they’re at everything. Those are two of the hottest right now.

Do you expect to see the departure of a lot of print titles in the next five to 10 years?
The good ones will survive, but if you were hanging in third of fourth place…in the boom time, you could have done it, but not now. At the same time, I think a lot of digital titles will go away, too. It used to be that you could put something up and just get traffic, but that’s not the case anymore—you need to have quality traffic, and results. On the ad front, which will help print, is the propensity for ad blockers on the digital side. It’s a bigger problem in Europe; it’s coming here. They’re thinking that, like, 15 percent of the ads now don’t get seen by anybody—some of them are only seen by robots. In the past year, advertisers have really stepped up the need to prove that these ads are going to be seen. That’s going to put pressure on digital. The other problem that I think a lot of digital sites and ad agencies have is that they’re all enamored with the latest technology—Snapchat and Instagram—and I think to some extent, they’ve lost track of the purpose of an ad. The purpose of an ad is to make you want to buy something—a watch, a car, a pair of shoes. A three-second view of something you’re clicking off of isn’t going to create that desire. Secretly, the ad agencies know that’s one of the problems; that’s why they’re not paying a lot for the ads.

Is there a future for the six-figure ad page?
For the premium products, yes. For the also-rans, no.

What’s going to happen to all these print editors who are out of work?
Consultants. They’ll make a campaign: Don’t let this happen to you.

Let’s talk about Allure. Is the print going away?
It’s been rumored for years that that was going to happen. I think what prevents it is they realize that print still has price integrity in terms of an ad. A lot of websites don’t have price integrity—you tell [advertisers] that the ad is going to cost $50,000, and they say, “How ’bout I give you 25?” Your person says, “Okay, I’ll take it.” With print, they still regard it as, okay, you have to hire editors, there’s a manufacturing cost, a paper cost, a mailing cost, a trucking cost…even if they don’t want to advertise, they don’t try and drive the ad price into the ground as much. With digital, they do. They don’t think there’s any cost of doing business with digital. They think the content just magically appears, and they can drive the price lower and lower and it won’t make a difference. But it will make a difference—you can’t have good content with no producers, no writers, no editors, no videographers. You still need good, engaging content—whatever you call it.

How do we get CPMs up on digital?
I think they’ll come up when a lot of the crappier sites disappear, and the premium sites can survive. I think they’ll also come up when there’s more paywall integrity. You hope that your content is valuable enough to pay a nominal price—not a sky-high price, but a little bit of a toll, a gate, to get through.

Anna Wintour recently did an interview with the Times, which I’m sure you saw. She mentioned a few editors by name—Graydon Carter, David Remnick—that seemed to be out of her area of focus.
Yeah, they would still report directly up. She’s not going to go in and try to redo their magazines while they’re there.

But it seemed like everyone else was kind of fair game.
I would say so. I would expect to see some kind of elevation of Anna, off of day-to-day editor-in-chief duties. Not that she would be hands-off, but she might delegate more of that. There are rumblings that Natalie Massenet is somehow coming over, not as an editor but as a chief brand officer of something…I don’t know if there are any noncompetes tangling her up for a year or so, but I would expect to see her somewhere at Condé Nast within the next year.

Do you think Anna’s there for the long-term?
If she goes, it will be her choice to go. If she wants it, it’s hers to keep. Fashion being such an important part of the Condé empire, she’s the No. 1 fashion person. Bob Sauerberg is a person in a suit who worked on consumer marketing and circulation—he’s not going to impress anybody in a fashion meeting. He’s well-dressed and everything, and he’s a nice guy, but Anna’s the person they want to see. As long as that’s the case, she’s there.

Or as long as the Newhouses still own Condé Nast.
Well, if the Newhouses sell, all those high-priced editors will go. There’s no way they’re sticking around. If an outside investor comes in and looks at those salaries, he’s going to say, “Here’s a way to get rid of 10 or 20 million in cost.”

How do you feel about the idea that a lot of people in New York media are scared of you?
I think a lot of people in New York media like it when I cover their nearest competitor. Some people said that when they got to meet me in person, they were surprised that I was a nice guy. I’m like, Yeah, I have a family, I’m a Little League coach…but we’re not doing puff pieces.

Source: http://fashionweekdaily.com/exclusive-keith-kelly-state-media/

 

[SpeakThatJDunn]

Does anyone know how well Beyonce's September cover of Vogue sold? In comparison to other September issues? Or other issues that year?