The Business of Magazines | Page 135 | the Fashion Spot

The Business of Magazines

Well, it is indeed true. Alex pulled Kate's cover 24 hours before printing to replace it with Rihanna's after getting wind of the US shoot. She's very tetchy about the whole thing in it.

Interestingly, the Kate Moss cover with the Rolling Stones look, her entire team wanted an alternative cover. Only Alex wanted the 'boring' one that ended up on newsstands.

March 2016's cover sales were 20% up on last March's also.
 
Alex felt annoyed by it (2 covers, 1 star) no?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She most certainly felt annoyed, angry even!! I don't understand why she was so closed off, and guarded? She agreed to be filmed, but she didn't show up when she had to. At least Wintour let it all out, and there was no pretense when she hated things!!

And of course how funny that every cover she denied, was the one i would have picked. The scene with the suits was SO upsetting to me, perfect example of business thinking trumping creativity! Jamie was a revelation, loved her.

I did feel like the director should have been more pushy, and demanding around them, he got played a lot of times!
 
Wait so if she really had Rihanna for May and felt annoyed that US would have Rihanna too, why the push back?
 
She pushed forward, not back. And her anger wasn't at US Vogue, it was at Rihanna and her people. That much is evident when she says something along the lines of 'when you have the story'. I took from the discussion that they had agreed Rihanna would give the story and promotion for the collection to them and they played her off by accepting a US Vogue cover story also.

US Vogue probably did know at the time of booking Rihanna however I bet, and that's why she was slated for the cover before the British one.
 
^ Yes it seems it was a matter of principal for Shulman, she felt played by Rihanna's people. Given how many covers she does, i wonder if Rihanna and her people even cared they did this, its certainly not cool, and made editor's life more difficult, especially when you hear Jaime say how hard they had to work to make the change in time for print. And i doubt US Vogue knew either, Jaime even tells him Anna probably doesn't know anything about this.

And i have to say i liked Shulman, didn't agree with her all the time, but she seems very hands on, and knowing what she wants.

Anyone know when the second episode airs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same time next week, so the 15th, 9pm BST on BBC 2.

And he's interviewing Anna. I wonder if he asks about it. My guess is he doesn't, he seems like not too much of a pushy interviewer.

I don't think my interview of Alex has changed to be honest. She's a capable, intelligent women who would be a great editor. I just don't feel her place is at what should be the best fashion magazine Britain produces.
 
^ Thanks for the next ep air date.

And i agree, she is clearly an intelligent, and capable woman, but would be more suited for a non fashion title!
 
She most certainly felt annoyed, angry even!! I don't understand why she was so closed off, and guarded? She agreed to be filmed, but she didn't show up when she had to. At least Wintour let it all out, and there was no pretense when she hated things!!

I did feel like the director should have been more pushy, and demanding around them, he got played a lot of times!

Who is this mousy director/interviewer? Talk about a missed opportunity! It seems a no holes barred venture into British Vogue would have been far more intriguing than that US Vogue documentary. This job needed someone with a strong backbone, who's prepared to probe, regardless of icy stares. He backed down far too easily, probably felt intimidated by fashion.

I actually think she's more guarded in past interviews, she always seemed to revel in the idea of being anti-fashion, when in fact she's covertly pragmatic. To run the world's second most important fashion magazine would require a pair of bollocks made from steel. However reluctant she may appear to own that, we got to see that last night. But I also agree, she's simply not the right woman to run this magazine. There's no balance with her at all. Business will always trump fashion with her simply because she doesn't have that fashion eye.
 
^ Is it ultimately her individual fault though or does the team play a significant role in that? Wintour doesn't seem much into fashion to me either but she has editors - well, had, now that Grace has left - who are doing the balancing.
 
^What? Wintour is basically OBSESSED with fashion, and has been from a young age. Shulman used to work for a music magazine, and later on for GQ, unlike Anna she doesn't "come" from Fashion.

Benn i totally agree, this could have been so much better if the director showed some back bone!!! Watching the docu i felt like he could have pushed it so much more to get greater stuff. And its interesting the reviews i read about the second episode mention that Shulman lied to his face, and said she didn't feel bad about it haha. The scene in the car where he lefts her off the hook when she throws a hissy fit was so funny to me! I would have pushed that further, let her be uncomfortable!
 
The interviewer reminded me of the guy from Vogue's 73 Questions. If you don't wanna answer, move on. It's rather disappointing for something this big of an opportunity.

However my question is, how to be PART of that market research. I'd love to be part of those who get to see the covers in advance and have an actual say to it :-(
 
SPOILER ALERT
Highlight here:He doesn't ask Anna

On another note: I thought the documentary was fascinating but the editing/music/interviewer were horrible. At one point it was as if it was a eulogy to someone at Vogue.
 
It was an interesting documentary even if i was a bit surprised by her "lack" of passion for fashion.
Franca, Anna & Alexandra are journalist first compared to Carine & Emmanuelle. With Anna, you feel like she loves fashion. She has been supportive of designers and you feel like she has a certain expectations from her magazine in terms of fashion. Anna put fashion in the context of Vogue. Franca is maybe more concern about fashion photography and the power of it in a society...

Alexandra is just an intelligent and clever business woman who happen to work for a fashion magazine.
I really don't understand why she was so guarded about the Rihanna thing. She could answered in a diplomatic way.
If you let your doors open, be honest and really open about it.

If i was the interviewer i would have asked Anna about it. Maybe he was more afraid about Alexandra being upset than Anna's reaction. I know she would have a diplomatic answer.

This documentary is good but i don't know if it's good for Alex. It's really not a good look for her as a fashion editor. After all this years, it seems like she is still trying to be "like a fashion editor".

Lucinda is great even if i don't like her work at Vogue. The whole team is fun while serious and i love that. Great work atmosphere.
 
I have always found recent British Vogue to be the humdrum sister in the Vogue family - the one getting by on the family's name with no charms of her own. There are a few times she shows unexpected brilliance, but it is not customary. She may be second to her American sibling in terms of commercial success, but is far behind the Italian and French sisters in terms of vivacity. British Vogue is not one I pay much attention on the newsstands and even less regard is allotted to its staff. Shulman is the editor I know the least out of the big four, not because she is guarded (would not know if she is), but because there is little interest in getting to know the person behind such lackluster offerings, so I welcomed this special to get a chance to see the sister no one really talks about.

The special so far has been as uninteresting as the magazine itself, largely due to the director and interviewer. Armed with no more than casual information of the industry and the magazine, the interviewer is most times caught in the headlights with no idea of how to move further or dig deeper. Numerous opportunities are missed because the interviewer is too submissive. Magazines worry fervently about sagging sales and British Vogue has been handed an opportunity embolden and highlight the brand, but instead the filming team is relegated to watch from a distance and conversations are bare. What material they did collect barely did much to help the brand - the women in the office are shown as babbling giggling materialists while the few men around are shown focused on their work, the magazine is shown as just a commercial machine where emotions, risk, or fun are not permitted, and its editors are near their ends trying to make old models exciting and existing trends new again - the magazine is cold, the glittering facade has been forgotten to reveal a marketing horse powered by statistics and market surveys. This special will do no favors for the magazine. It is revelatory of the state of fashion, which I'm afraid that adds up to a boring subject. The highlight so far is Shulman's dramatic move to push up Rihanna's cover, possibly her smartest decision of the documentary so far.

As I said, Shulman is not an editor I knew much about, but what I have gathered so far confirms it is time her reign has been brought to an overdue end. She lacks the eye and personality to steer a fashion magazine of this stature. I would not be surprised if she has led the magazine to better sales and numbers, but it is time they take this and shift towards a more progressive and expressive plain. It was heartbreaking to see what the other option of the Kate Moss cover was - it could have gone on to become another iconic image in Moss' stable - I would have raced to newsstands for that issue. Fashion is in a sour spot and unless the powers-that-be chose to celebrate and promote true creativity and ingenuity it will remain in its rut. With Shulman as her governess, British Vogue will remain the sister people forget is at the party.
 
^What? Wintour is basically OBSESSED with fashion, and has been from a young age. Shulman used to work for a music magazine, and later on for GQ, unlike Anna she doesn't "come" from Fashion.

Benn i totally agree, this could have been so much better if the director showed some back bone!!! Watching the docu i felt like he could have pushed it so much more to get greater stuff. And its interesting the reviews i read about the second episode mention that Shulman lied to his face, and said she didn't feel bad about it haha. The scene in the car where he lefts her off the hook when she throws a hissy fit was so funny to me! I would have pushed that further, let her be uncomfortable!

I think what I was trying to say came out wrong. I meant it more as at the end of the day, Anna would go with what is best for the business but there are editors at Vogue that challenge her - or at least try to. The Kate Moss cover meeting in the documentary about Vogue UK was almost painful to watch. Everyone sat there quietly.
 
Just watched the first episode and OUCH!:doh: Shulman did not come off as likable at all... I know Anna has a reputation for being cold, but I can't remember ever finding her unlikable in this way. I so felt for the film maker when he was told to leave etc. Poor guy, that must have been so uncomfortable...

I think it was fair to ditch the union jack cover considering how they usually sell. That grey cover is still dull as dirt though...
 
FMA Winner: Jim Nelson, GQ, Men’s Magazine of the Year
By Eddie Roche | September 11, 2016

After nearly 20 years at GQ, Jim Nelson’s status as the king of cool remains uncontested.

You’ve got a guy in a Superman shirt on your September cover.
We’re riding high on the September issue—[Carolina Panthers quarterback] Cam Newton is on the cover. We always think of September as the moment when the fashion calendar, and the year, begins. We want to have somebody on the cover who represents that, in their manhood and style. Mario Testino shot the story, and their energy was perfect. We’re living in this maximalist era: People are allowing their inner peacock to come out a little more. We’ve lived through a period of minimalism in the past 5 to 10 years, and I see that shifting. Guys want to bust out a little more, and misbehave. That’s a good thing.

Kim Kardashian’s first GQ cover, which came out in July, generated a lot of attention. What took you so long?
Sometimes we wait for the right moment to make it “our” moment. It was the 10th anniversary of our Love, Sex & Madness issue, and she represents female beauty and where we are as a culture. She and Kanye West have increased and expanded their brands by being together. I had also wanted to work with Mert & Marcus for a long time, and it felt like we could make an event out of having them all together. What I love about Kim is that when she does something, she embraces it 100 percent. We broke records online—we had 2 million unique visitors in 36 hours.

In the interview, Kim essentially called Taylor Swift a liar, and the story went nuclear. Did you anticipate all the hullabaloo?
I knew it would be news, but I didn’t know it was going to be as big as it was. We had to be fair to Taylor, whom we also love, and she gave a really great and thoughtful response. We knew the internet would do whatever it always wants to do with any kind of dispute. There’s some part of it that feels like public comic opera. We’re doing our part to support that.

Is she still selling?

She is! When you put someone like Kim on the cover, you are going to get some real haters on social media. People are always saying, “Cancel my subscription!” which never really happens, but you’re also going to bring in some new people. You have to mix it up. Some of our readers had a problem with Justin Bieber; we were convinced by the music. He finally put up or shut up, and put out a great record. He looks great in clothes, too.

You’ve put a lot of effort into rethinking GQ.com this year.
We made it sleeker and faster. That was really important to us. I’m proud that it looks bolder. We have a new homepage. For some people, in the age of social media links, it’s not as important, but we have a very sizable audience coming to us through the homepage. The site has gone up 20 percent in traffic. We’ve concentrated on being careful of what our reader truly wants. We’re spending more time with voice and wit, with writers who showcase GQ. I hired Caity Weaver from Gawker. I would basically go there just to read her stuff. I had a new website position, and I was meeting all kinds of people, and I ended up promoting Jon Wilde from within. He was the best example of what I call “printagration”—bringing print and digital together so each of us gets stronger. For years Jon had edited the Manual section of the magazine, and he put his name in the ring to run the website. I’ve been delighted how he took to it so naturally. The web team has somebody who has really grown up in the GQ voice.

What other projects have you tackled?
We launched GQ Style, which is for the reader who wants luxury. We’re creating a lot more video content on our site. At the NBA Draft, we hooked up with Instagram and did style celebrations of the youngest talent. In the year ahead I want to concentrate on how to make digital look bold and different. And I was just in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on the set of a movie based on a GQ article. It feels more like a media brand than just a magazine.

Details folded. It’s a new day at Esquire. Why is GQ still standing strong?
I believe it has to do with putting the reader first. We always begin with every story by asking what the reader wants out of it. I want to affect people. I want them to come away from a story entertained, or think it’s the most heartbreaking piece they’ve read. From the beginning, I’ve always had a keen sense for reduced attention spans. I recognize the reader has a lot of things coming for him or her, and I want to reach them right at the moment of their curiosity. I tried to do that with fashion at the beginning. I didn’t want to put people in clothes, in fields, looking into the distance. Guys want clear messaging and clothes styled for their lives.

Which designers are you into these days?
I’m very eclectic. I wear a lot of high/low. I’m loving Gucci and Valentino right now—also Michael Bastian, Todd Snyder, Gitman Brothers, and Saturdays. I love Common Projects shoes. Virgil Abloh is a really talented designer. In the past year, we’ve been celebrating designers who are truly making a mark. I’ve been here for almost 20 years, and the reader is more advanced about the style world. Men have come a long way.

What do you think about the changes at Calvin Klein?
Italo Zucchelli is a friend, and I was pained for him, but I also recognize that Raf Simons is a genius. I expect it will bring a level of energy and critical attention to that house that will be very exciting. I expect some beautiful things to come down that runway. Raf is what everybody wants in fashion. He has an uncompromising vision. I’m excited whenever that is celebrated. Vision is rarer than you think, and something to be celebrated. I’m excited when I see a fashion house bet big.

What do you think Italo will do next?
He’ll come back in exciting ways. He’s just too talented not to. I don’t know where he’ll crop up, but I’m rooting for him. There isn’t a lovelier guy out there in the fashion world.

Next year will bring the 60th anniversary of GQ. How will you celebrate?
We’re going to feel proud and go into the year feeling good. It’s rare that a magazine has this much history and is stronger than ever. We’ll devote one of our fall issues to some 60th anniversary celebration. I always say that I don’t think readers care so much when you’re just celebrating yourself. We’re thinking about distilled knowledge, and trying to suss out what in fashion still endures. The rest is secret!

How closely do you work with Anna Wintour?
A fair bit, partly because the conversation of the company has changed over the years to the fact that we are all one company. That’s been something that [Condé Nast CEO] Bob Sauerberg has talked a lot about, and Anna believes in thoroughly. She’s also a great proponent of transparency and communication. I appreciate that so much—having someone who wants to have conversations about whatever the issues are. She’s a sounding board, and a great listener. Nobody is better at follow-up than Anna Wintour. We’re all so busy, and it’s great to have somebody who keeps things moving and clear. It’s been great.

She’s such an icon. Do you ever get awestruck?
Of course. I’ve never met anybody whose public persona is more different than what they’re like in real life. She’s very easy to talk to. She’s direct, and I appreciate that. She’s a problem-solver.

How much longer do you think you’ll want to stay here for?

That’s a great question. As long as they’ll have me? [Laughs] Everyone needs to have a side hustle, so I think about that. Should I write a script? Should I write a book? But I want to have this as my main hustle for a very long time.

Source: https://fashionweekdaily.com/fma-mens-magazine-gq-jim-nelson/
 
Just watched the first episode and OUCH!:doh: Shulman did not come off as likable at all... I know Anna has a reputation for being cold, but I can't remember ever finding her unlikable in this way. I so felt for the film maker when he was told to leave etc. Poor guy, that must have been so uncomfortable...

I think it was fair to ditch the union jack cover considering how they usually sell. That grey cover is still dull as dirt though...

I agree with you !!! After watching it, i did understand the problem with this magazine. It is only ruled by Shulman and her poor vision of fashion. She exudes a huge ego but also not so much confidence in her choices. She is not able to listen her team and to have a proper conversation with all of them in order to make the magazine better and better. I find her rude, not really clever and she is not a teamplayer. So far, The September issue was so much better. The interviewer was not afraid of pushing when it was necessary, Anna let a lot of freedom unlike Alexandra and we did have a better presentation of each member from US Vogue.

I would like to know better about Jaime, the creative director. She seems to be the only one to speak frankly, to have a voice and to not be afraid of sharing her opinion.

Plus, British Vogue truly lacks of huge creative talents. Lucinda Chambers is quite boring imo.
 
I found the second episode of the Vogue programme really frustrating. I understand the facts they presented - during Alexandra's reign the magazine has had its most successful period - however for me, in the past 10 or so years she has zapped every last ounce of its fashion clout, rendering it a shell of its former self. When I think back to the issues that I grew up with, they were so different. They were producing great editorial work and covers, and this was with Alexandra at the helm.

Over all, I didn't warm to Alexandra much. I'm baffled she let the cameras in to be honest, she didn't seem open to them finding out much about the inner workings at all. For me it was only really Lucinda who came out of well. Julia - the online news editor (I think that was her name and title) for me, came out of it the worst. Solidifying every stereotype that people would have about someone who works in fashion. She took herself so very seriously.

On another note, for me, the editing and direction was so weak. The interviewer had no interest in fashion, I don't feel he'd even done any research. His comment about 'I think a woman would be better to do this' was so odd. I didn't like his chat with Georgia May. It was a nice chat, she was open and friendly and then he asked about the Stones which she said she couldn't talk about it, why leave it in? It made her look awkward for me - something I don't think she was being at all. It made for uncomfortable viewing and was clearly only left in in an attempt at making her look guarded.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back
    Top