The Business of Magazines

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Exactly, i don't believe this "they chose to follow Shulman" for a second! Who are they kidding!!!

I read some of these articles you guys linked to, but some things have me confused. Perhaps you guys are less confused and could help me out?

1) If Shulman left on her own accord, why would junior members of staff and assistants follow her out the door? Will they go directly into Shulmans employment? It seems like a big risk to take if you are not promised a job... Is it an easy job market?

2) Do anyone actually read Vogues anymore? They are rarely the first to describe a phenomena and rarely offer a insightful quality analysis worth reading (at least in english). So what is it that they are supposed to be writing that we are supposed to be enjoying? Celebrity interviews? Fluff pieces(/page fillers)?

1. There is a new boss in the building, when such major changes happen, it is common that the incoming editor-in-chief has the opportunity to make his own team which often means totally new people HE wants. Many could stay, but would either be asked to join other magazines, or even get fired, like Chambers. Shulman will not be employing them, but she should have known when deciding to resign that this would happen. It is not an easy job market, and it depends on your network, and connections. Most people who work in it, have actually got the jobs through knowing the right people, or worked their way up.

2. Yes, yes we do! In fact Shulman's Vogue did not have the most Fashion forward content, but it had one of the best profiles, and articles of any Vogues. Well written, interesting subjects, there was always something in there to read. UK Vogue sells 200.000 copies (or just under, not counting subscribers) each month, so it has a market. Vogue still holds the power of prestige, and can still get many subjects (from Politics, Art to Music.etc figures) to profile & cover, that other magazines simply can not! Remember Duchess of Cambridge did her first cover for them last year, the Vogue brand is still influential & powerful.

 

[tigerrouge]

The BBC has taken a look at this 'posh girl exodus':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40504478

 

[eizhowa]

^ Exactly, i don't believe this "they chose to follow Shulman" for a second! Who are they kidding!!!



1. There is a new boss in the building, when such major changes happen, it is common that the incoming editor-in-chief has the opportunity to make his own team which often means totally new people HE wants. Many could stay, but would either be asked to join other magazines, or even get fired, like Chambers. Shulman will not be employing them, but she should have known when deciding to resign that this would happen. It is not an easy job market, and it depends on your network, and connections. Most people who work in it, have actually got the jobs through knowing the right people, or worked their way up.

2. Yes, yes we do! In fact Shulman's Vogue did not have the most Fashion forward content, but it had one of the best profiles, and articles of any Vogues. Well written, interesting subjects, there was always something in there to read. UK Vogue sells 200.000 copies (or just under, not counting subscribers) each month, so it has a market. Vogue still holds the power of prestige, and can still get many subjects (from Politics, Art to Music.etc figures) to profile & cover, that other magazines simply can not! Remember Duchess of Cambridge did her first cover for them last year, the Vogue brand is still influential & powerful.

Thank you for your reply

It would definitely make more sense that they were fired.

I am not questioning their power. I still buy Vogue for their pictures and the people they take pictures off. I might be an oddball for prefering fashion analyses over celebrity interviews. I wouldn't be surprised

 

[MON]

^I agree. Content wise, U.K. Vogue is one of, if not the, strongest out of all editions out there. Alex knows good journalism and delivers. I'd give her that. But fashion wise, nope.

Now it makes me think of how many of those from the fashion industry who said that they "decided to leave" but were actually fired. Come to think of it, it's indeed a good and common PR spin.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Yeah, its very common for fired Fashion people to be saving face, or even not allowed to straight out say they have been brutally fired because they sign non-discloure agreement's.

It will be very interesting to see how Edward finds the balance between written content, and Fashion. With Alex Fashion really was not her strong suit, but Enninful could be the opposite, although can UK Vogue survive on just amazing Fashion editorial content? I don't think so! Emily was another great contributor to that side, and now she is gone too!

Thank you for your reply

It would definitely make more sense that they were fired.

I am not questioning their power. I still buy Vogue for their pictures and the people they take pictures off. I might be an oddball for prefering fashion analyses over celebrity interviews. I wouldn't be surprised

I do agree that celebrity fluff pieces are just beyond boring, i couldn't finish the cover story of Elle Fanning for US Vogue, it was just so insipid, and clearly a woman way too young with nothing of substance to say, so I got no time for that. I do like the interesting women they profile though, the article about Sam Taylor-Johnson few issues ago was great, and I have to say the VB piece she wrote for them last year was one of the best celeb cover stories they published, it was straight forward, and honest, not something we see often from famous women like her.

But I think you might get what you want with Edward, there will still be celebs featured of course, but i think he will focus more on Fashion figures, models.etc

 

[Miss Dalloway]

The BBC has taken a look at this 'posh girl exodus':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40504478

Thanks for posting this article. I am all for ousting the "Posh Girl" out of Vogue, do I believe all will get the boot? Hahah no, some are way too connected, and will be safe, but all changes by Edward that have been made public, so far, are very, very promising to me. Will be so interesting to see if he keeps Jaime, she seemed in the docu like the kind of person who might get along with him.

Vestoj saying they took Lucinda's interview down "due to industry preassures" says it all!!

Reading this I got reminded how very, very much I miss Hillary Alexander.

 

[Benn98]

Wonder if he'll keep the digital girls, Sarah Harris and Julia 'my shearling Prada coat costs as much as a 2nd hand Mini Cooper' Hobbs. Because if the magazine's aesthetic will change, so must the digital platforms. Sarah in particular came across as someone who is simply being paid to look chic and accumulate shoes. Back in the day women like her and Plum Sykes were a necessity for Vogue, but I'm not sure about today.....

 

[honeycombchild]

My guess is Sarah will stay. If Edward has anything about him however, he'll swiftly remove Julia. I don't like to be mean but seriously, that girl.

 

[MissMagAddict]

Wondering how long it will take before Condé Nast comes to the realization that Enninful is in way over his head.

 

[8eight]

Grace Coddington, Steve McQueen, Kate Moss and (of course) Naomi are all new contributing editors to British Vogue.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Wondering how long it will take before Condé Nast comes to the realization that Enninful is in way over his head.

Haha, it really seems like it, especially with today's announcement of Naomi, Kate and Steve as contributors!

But i honestly don't want him to fail, he has such a great opportunity to revamp the magazine, but still make it profitable.

 

[MissMagAddict]

... Chambers also admitted that she hasn’t read Vogue in years. “I never felt I led a Vogue-y kind of life. The clothes are just irrelevant for most people — so ridiculously expensive. It’s a shame that magazines have lost the authority they once had. They’ve stopped being useful. Why not be both useful and aspirational? That’s the kind of fashion magazine I’d like to see.”

Chambers also alluded to a “new idea” that she’s working on...

source | wwd

Lordy, I hope she isn't going to start a magazine.

 

[honeycombchild]

Condé Nast Forces Changes to Lucinda Chambers’ Firing Tell-All
The web site Vestoj has decided to amend the article, which made waves with Chambers’ frank view of her decades in fashion.

After being posted, taken down, and reposted, former British Vogue fashion director Lucinda Chambers’ less-than-flattering account of life in fashion publishing has been amended at the demand of Condé Nast lawyers.

Vestoj, the fashion-focused web site that on Monday published Chambers’ first-person account of her 36 years as a Vogue editrix, today put a note above the article reading: “Following the original publication of this article, we’ve been contacted by lawyers on behalf of Condé Nast Limited and Edward Enninful OBE and have been requested to amend the interview. This request has now been granted.”

The web site on Wednesday briefly took the article down, but then reposted it, explaining that the article’s “sensitive nature” led to the decision, but that it was being put back up “in its entirety.”

It appears now that the only change to the article has been to the section where Chambers, who in May parted ways with British Vogue, claimed to have been fired by incoming editor in chief Edward Enninful “in three minutes” and that no one at the magazine knew it was coming.

In the now-deleted section, Chambers explained her perception that management, her editor at the time, h.r. and even the magazine’s chairman were unaware of her firing and recounted running into the magazine’s publisher right after she was let go and him expressing shock and surprise at the development.

Condé Nast had already taken issue with this account of Chambers’ firing and on Thursday reiterated its stance that, in addition to it being “usual for an incoming editor to make some changes to the team,” any personnel changes “are done with the full knowledge of senior management.” The company declined to comment further.

Anja Aronowsky Cronberg, Vestoj editor in chief and publisher, as well as a senior research fellow at London College of Fashion, confirmed that the article was amended on Thursday and that the “offending passage” was Chambers’ account of her firing.

“Considering this is a David and Goliath fight I don’t have the financial means to enter into, I made the requested changes,” Cronberg said.

As for whether Chambers personally has been threatened with any legal action over the article, Cronberg didn’t speculate, but said, “I suspect Lucinda is under a lot of pressure right now.”

“All I know is that challenging power in those ways has a cost,” she added.

Chambers could not be reached for comment.

British Vogue is going through some big staff changes under Enninful, who is set to lead the publication officially starting Aug. 1.

Vogue veteran Grace Coddington is set to return to the publication as a contributor after having worked there for 19 years before becoming creative director of U.S. Vogue. Film director, producer, screenwriter and video artist Steve McQueen will also be joining as contributing editor, alongside Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss, who was already working with the magazine under Alexandra Shulman, Enninful’s predecessor.

This week has also seen deputy editor Emily Sheffield announce her decision to leave the magazine and more changes are expected over the coming weeks.

From WWD

 

[Benn98]

Too late! This is like trying to get toothpaste back into the tube. Their reputation is already tarnish. The original article is littered all over the net.
Facts are facts, and I truly believe Lucinda's version played out the way she described it. She may come across as insanely credulous since she truly believed the ones who told her they don't know nowt. That said, I also understand Anna's stance. Not having the means to fight Conde Nash, I'd have done exactly the same.

Edward OBE should just remember though, what goes around comes around!

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Once again big companies bully smaller ones just because they can! I also believe Lucinda, and truly hope they won't be suing her, it's implied she might be in trouble. Now that would really be bad PR for CN, let her be, she is out now!

I was surprised that both CN, AND Edward's lawyers came after this, damn Edward might be more ruthless than i thought, and maybe will do just fine in his new role.

 

[Benn98]

I was surprised that both CN, AND Edward's lawyers came after this...

MTE! This is so unnecessary. CN will most likely kick her in the nuts with their nondisclosure agreement, but that should be enough, no? Makes me think whether he secretly relished sacking her. Not a pleasing thought, tbh.

I feel sorry for Lucinda, the last thing she need in addition to all this stress is getting slapped with solicitor's letters. Because it sounds to me like CN whopped Anna with a retraction demand, but Lucinda could be in deeper trouble. Slander, perhaps?

 

[eizhowa]

Can you get sued for telling the truth? Which part is it they find damaging? The one where she possibly mis-represented who had what knowledge of her being fired? It is entirely possible that the "senior management" agreed to letting Enninful make changes without having specific knowledge about whether Lucinda was going to get fired or not.

I don't think it is likely that she had signed some confidentiality agreement, given that she spoke out. Who is that dumb?

 

[Benn98]

Can you get sued for telling the truth? Which part is it they find damaging? The one where she possibly mis-represented who had what knowledge of her being fired? It is entirely possible that the "senior management" agreed to letting Enninful make changes without having specific knowledge about whether Lucinda was going to get fired or not.

I don't think it is likely that she had signed some confidentiality agreement, given that she spoke out. Who is that dumb?

That's just it. If she can prove that her interpretation was the way things transpired, then she's in the clear, surely.
I think the part they're taking issue with is her implying that Edward made a unilateral decision to sack her. I don't think nobody knew she'd be sacked (like she claimed in the article). That's why I asked who vetted the changes. In my mind Edward would submit a list of who's in and who's out to his superiors. They would approve it (a given, in his case) and only then can you send out pink slips. But since Lucinda was employed by CN, and not Alexandra nor Edward, why is he firing her? In which manner did he do it? Was it their first point of contact in his capacity as EIC? These are all things which will be addressed in a court of law if this drags out. There are laws in place, and I hope they followed the correct procedures.

Pretty sure most people employed by CN sign nondisclosure agreement. That's the norm. That article we saw was clearly written in a moment of madness, and legally, a huge misstep on Lucinda's behalf. You can tell by reading it that it was a rash move, not clearly thought out at all.The court case, if there will be one, will start with her breaking this agreement.

I wonder what transpired between the time when Vogue announced that 'she's leaving' and last week when she said she got fired?? I mean that's enough of a gap (for me, at least) to seethe, yet approach the situation logically. Maybe this article was written immediately after the press release, and she sat on it for a while? But why publish it? That's what I don't get.

 

[MON]

Maybe their issue is that her article painted Edward, the incoming editor, in a negative way? Unless the NDA includes a stipulation that employees cannot reveal that they were fired and were required to state that they voluntarily left, I think she's in the clear.

And this huge of a recourse by CN made them look guilty. I'm not saying that they are, but the aggressiveness didn't look good.

 

[dodencebt]

Like I already said in another thread, the way Vogue UK and Edward are handling the move is terrible. I am sure there could have been an amicable way to part but to me it seems they decided to go down the ruthless way. Firing someone is a very sensitive thing, especially in this industry where everyone knows each other. You can't just call someone in your office, let them go and show them the door. There has to be better communication on everyone's behalf.