The Business of Magazines

[caioherrero]

^ he was laid off. He did not show up at work since his nomination. Why ? I don't know but his presence at Elle was useless and he is useless. Good riddance

Really? Why? Is he crazy?

 

[Deleted member 130879]

"very intuitive about people" is a way to put it.

 

[Bertrando3]

WOW very surprised to see an edition of ELLE shutting down, this really IS the worst era for magazines isn´t it ?!!! Every year soooo many fashion titles, big fashion titles on top of that not some indie magazine, shut down, it´s crazy.

 

[MissMagAddict]

More blah blah blah...

Kate Lewis Replaces Joanna Coles at Hearst

Lewis has been named new chief content officer, a role that was created for Coles in 2016.
Kali Hays

Hearst didn’t waste time in finding a replacement for Joanna Coles as chief content officer.

Kate Lewis has been named her successor, a selection made by chief executive officer Steven Swartz and Troy Young, who was recently named president of Hearst Magazines, the suspected impetus behind Coles’ abrupt departure, and to whom Lewis will now report.

“With her strong background in both [the print and digital] worlds, Kate is ideally suited to help our editors and producers take their products to the next level of excellence by finding new ways to collaborate,” Swartz said.

Lewis came to Hearst in 2014 after a stint at Say Media, a tech-driven and digital-media-focused advertising firm where Young was president for two years. Before that, she spent more than a decade at Hearst rival Condé Nast. Lewis started as an editorial assistant to Vanity Fair’s former long time editor Graydon Carter and eventually became managing editor of defunct Mademoiselle magazine, before going on to serve in the same role at Self magazine for 10 years, which subsequently ceased to be a print publication. She then became executive director of human resources for Condé.

Young added that Lewis, in her current role of senior vice president, editorial director at Hearst, has built out an editorial team that’s creating “service journalism in words, images and video.” He said she’s “played an integral role in growing our digital organization into the fast-moving, profitable business it is today.”

Hearst pointed out in a statement that monthly unique views across Hearst’s digital media portfolio have tripled under Lewis’ leadership, a time that’s included her oversight of social media content and strategy for the portfolio, an audience that Hearst said has grown to 220 million in total, along with editorial video and branded content.

Although only at Hearst for four years, Lewis succeeding Coles counts as her third promotion, so far, and it’s certainly her biggest role to date.

As chief content officer — a position with broader scope created in 2016 for Coles after Ellen Levine retired as Hearst’s editorial director — Lewis will direct print and digital content strategy across the company’s magazine titles, oversee all U.S. publications’ editors in chief and digital directors and connect with international editions “to maximize global content opportunities,” according to Hearst.

The company added that Lewis will also be working with product and technology and consumer marketing development teams, along with its branded content unit.

“Kate’s responsibilities will be broader, but her core mission is the same: making content and products that engage and entertain readers, with a focus on excellence in storytelling and service,” Young said. “She’s an insightful leader with a profound understanding of our brands and our audiences and she will move our editorial teams toward greater collaboration across platforms.”

To that point, Lewis noted Hearst’s larger than ever combined print, digital and social audience, saying the company needs to “create content that caters to both the tremendous scale and the personal passions of our consumers.”

“This role is an extraordinary opportunity for me to work holistically with our talented editorial teams on these powerful brands,” Lewis added. “I am excited to continue the growth of our existing titles, build new brands and find new audiences together.”
source | wwd.com

 

[caioherrero]

Anyone know what’s Miguel Enamorado are doing at Harper’s Bazaar?

 

[MissMagAddict]

Vanity Fair’s September Cover Sells Something. And Not Only What It Says.
Michelle Williams, Louis Vuitton and the aesthetics of brand synergy.

by Vanessa Friedman
Aug. 8, 2018

Let’s face it: Very few people really read a magazine’s cover credits, which is to say, the boxes of very small type inside the table of contents listing the team behind the image, the clothes worn and the cosmetics used.

Sometimes, however, they contain nuggets of information that are forensically and culturally revealing. The September Vanity Fair is one of those times.

The image, for those who have been distracted by Beyoncé on Vogue, is of the actress Michelle Williams, perched on a stool, seemingly almost makeup free, in a crew-neck sweater and skirt against a maroon background. It’s minimal and unadorned, sort of confrontational in its apparent lack of artifice: This is me. Here’s what I think. Deal with it.

As such, it is reflective of the reinvention of the magazine under its new editor, Radhika Jones, and its pivot away from a kind of arch celebrity-meets-intellect fantasy.

It is also reflective of the approach of the photographer Collier Schorr, the artist/recent fashion favorite who took the picture, and who has built a career out of exploring ideas of gender and identity.

But it’s also something else.

See, Ms. Williams is an official brand ambassador of Louis Vuitton, the luxury house. She appears in some ad campaigns, attends shows and so on.

On the cover of the magazine, perhaps not surprisingly, she is wearing Louis Vuitton, as she generally does at the Oscars, the Met Gala or other big eyeball events. (That’s usually part of the deal.)

At the same time, Ms. Schorr is the current campaign photographer for Louis Vuitton. The brand’s ads, which feature a cast of models photographed with a relative lack of artifice against various colored backgrounds, look not unlike the portrait of Ms. Williams. It’s a photographic signature, after all.

And yet that does make it hard not to wonder, when you add the celebrity to the clothes to the photographer, if the cover is effectively … a Louis Vuitton ad.

Magazines have long blurred the line between commerce and editorial content, tacitly supporting advertisers in their fashion shoots. Recently, some have begun venturing into e-commerce with various products in their pages (sometimes even taking a cut of each transaction). Stylists and photographers who produce editorial shoots are often the same ones behind ad campaigns.

But synergy like this, where the dots are connected out in the open, is rare. According to the magazine, though, it was not by design, but by accident.

Vanity Fair chose Ms. Schorr to shoot the cover in May, before it was aware that she had shot the Vuitton ad campaign, which was unveiled in mid-June. The magazine was drawn to her both because of her aesthetic and because she was one of the few photographers in fashion to speak out when the Harvey Weinstein revelations broke, demanding that fashion take responsibility for its own actions.

This is also, presumably, part of what drew Vuitton to her, since a number of previous ad campaigns had been shot by Bruce Weber, a photographer accused of abuse by more than a dozen men in an investigation in The New York Times.

If you want to make a statement about entering a new era, Ms. Schorr is the obvious photographer to do it.

“Collier is an extraordinary New York artist whose work lives at the intersection of art and fashion,” Ms. Jones said. “We wanted that pairing of firsts — Collier's first assignment for V.F. and Michelle’s first cover for the magazine — as we continue to introduce new artists and voices to our audience.”

According to a Louis Vuitton spokeswoman, the brand-cover mind meld was “a happy coincidence.” Or perhaps a sign of the times, whether you buy the serendipity or not.

source | nytimes.com

 

[GivenchyAddict]

Anyone know what’s Miguel Enamorado are doing at Harper’s Bazaar?

He replaces Joanna Hillman who is on maternity leave for 4 months .

 

[Benn98]

Lmao at the lazy and weak Kool-Aid book editor wants us to sip. Please! One can tell she's new to the game, can't even lie properly. Who conceives or even shoots a September cover in May?? It's not like this was one of those big coups which would involve loads of planning. It's Michelle Williams! You can always find her at some farmers market in NY, so why plan so far ahead?

Just say you took the cheque and be done with it. We understand, everyone does it. Not that crude, but nevertheless.

 

[MissMagAddict]

^Benn

What the Hell Has Happened to Vanity Fair?
Column: A new editor is expected to bring changes, not try to fix things that aren't broken.

By Cable Neuhaus :: August 7, 2018

As dramas go, it is minor stuff. But in the itsy-bitsy, hothouse world of magazine glossies, the question everyone seems to be asking this summer is, “What the hell has happened to Vanity Fair?”

You remember Vanity Fair, no doubt. It was big not so long ago. The chatterati obsessed over it—its striking covers, its fabulous photo features, its stories (the revelations, the scandals, the crime deconstructions!), even its stylish advertising, which filled its shiny pages. And, of course, its larger-than-life editor, Graydon Carter, who announced his retirement at the end of last year after a quarter-century at the helm.

Now, half a year since Carter handed over the reins to his surprise-pick successor… silence. And not the kind of silence that issues from respect.

Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I do hear things, mainly because I’ve spent my life in the media. I listen for the whispers.

This is what media people are whispering: Vanity Fair is disappearing from the radar. In various forms and contexts, I hear the words “disaster,” “awful,” “irrelevant.”

Unfortunately for the magazine’s owner, Condé Nast, this is occurring at a most inauspicious moment. The publisher is confronting strong economic headwinds on several fronts, to the extent that it has begun the process of selling three of its books. For the time being, it’s said that VF is safe, but how long before some sort of radical change, or rescue, is deemed necessary?

(As if to kick sand in VF’s face, a newly emboldened and refinanced Rolling Stone—now a gorgeous monthly intent on more avidly chronicling social and political topics—has just come to market; one supposes it’s looking to scoop up readers, including disaffected VF loyalists. That’s gotta sting.)

The bottom line here is that what only months ago was, under Graydon Carter, a vibrant, decidedly show-offy magazine tapped into a certain sybaritic zeitgeist, now seems starved of the magic dust that had successfully powered it for decades.

There has been a palpable deceleration at VF, and it’s not clear if that’s what Condé Nast is seeking (hard to imagine), or if the newly installed editor, Radhika Jones, is expressing her vision of a VF that’s re-calibrated for these times.

In either case, it’s worrisome. If there’s no course correction in the near future, readers and advertisers are likely to bail.

Just last month, the astute media observer Tony Case, who blogs at tonyofallmedia.com, said of VF: “With one penny-pinching, jaw-droppingly shortsighted move, the publisher… seems intent on destroying it all.”

Of new EIC Radhika Jones, who was plucked from the New York Times’ books department, Case remarked that she “can’t carry a tune to save her life. The magazine under Radhika has no idea what it is, or what it wants to be.” And those were some of his more charitable comments.

I’m going to be gentler than Case, probably because over the years I’ve been asked to fix or help revive a number of magazines and I know how challenging the job can be. Even more so if one is following a living legend.

But let’s be honest, Vanity Fairdid not need to be fixed. You could argue that, post-Carter, an editor would want to quickly introduce some new, signature elements. (Tina Brown, who ran the book before it went to Carter, reportedly advised Jones to undertake its wholesale reinvention.) Some tweaking would have been understandable, even welcome. If an editor is not going to impose her own sensibility on a magazine, why take the job?

So, more than a handful of issues into the new editor’s management, let’s have a look at Jones’ VF, beginning with its critically important covers.

No way around it: They’ve all been shockingly dull—a tremendous departure from the past. Additionally, the choices have been surprising for how forgettable they’ve been. Jones’ first cover, back in March, featured a barely recognizable headshot of Jennifer Lawrence. Plus lots of almost-too-tiny-to-read type about the issue’s lineup. If the idea was to steer clear of Carter’s notion of a can’t-look-away, newsstand-centric cover, mission accomplished.

Jennifer Lawrence was followed by a succession of thoroughly so-what photographs of Lena Waithe, royals Harry and Meghan (a pick-up shot, no less), Emilia Clarke, Kendrick Lamar, and, for September’s style number, Michelle Williams. Thud, thud, thud, thud, thud.

Somewhere, in a dark restaurant, Graydon Carter must be sipping a glass of red and wondering, “What the hell?”

His beloved magazine, cover to cover, was for a long time the Cirque du Soleil of monthlies. Today, it’s a lounge act. Vanity Fair is fairly good, which is an OK standard if you’re talking about a dishwashing machine. It’s not good enough to be one of Condé Nast’s premier titles.
source | foliomag

 

[MissMagAddict]

continued...

I wonder if part of the the blame might rest on the shoulders of David Remnick, the estimable editor of The New Yorker, also owned by Condé. Remnick, an amazing writer, is said to have lobbied hard for hiring Radhika Jones from the Times. Like David himself, Radhika is widely seen as a cerebral, intellectually gifted talent. However, before this assignment, she had never overseen an entire magazine of great complexity and with a strong visual component. And it shows.

Maybe the initial clue to VF-the-lesser was the downsized cover logo, which showed up with Jones’ first issue. It’s been reduced by about 10 percent. Twice, it has been translucent. It feels like a metaphor for the entire book: more modest at every level. Fewer of the famously flamboyant (meaning expensive) cover set-ups, less potent cover typography, less clever, self-referential coverlines. All as if to say, “OK, we’re definitely tapping the brakes at this point.”

Which might in fact be the simple, clear message staring us right in the face. Around the time of Jones’ hiring, Condé Nast announced that budgets were being slashed. Lots less money for writers, photographers, and even for the new EIC, fewer perks throughout the company, S. I. Newhouse had passed, and advertising was disappearing. Time for a change.

In this new era of tighter budgets, the discrepancy between the “old” VF and the “new” one was bound to show up in some form, although I don’t think it was foolish to remain optimistic about the transition. Graydon Carter (he with the huge salary and perks) signed off this year with an issue that, on its gatefold cover, featured Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Harrison Ford and others. Sure, these may be tired, old-timers. But they are major-league stars with broad appeal. (Kendrick Lamar talks to a different generation. Which leads me to ask: Are Kendrick’s fans ever going to be VF readers?)

One has to ask, seriously, would Condé ever again approve the kind of photo and logistics budget demanded for Carter’s grand and final Hollywood cover? I’m guessing not. As for Jones’ choice of the Jennifer Lawrence cover image that came immediately after: shot in Malibu by an outside contractor.

So, some might argue that part of VF’s failure to ignite under the Jones administration is largely money-related. I don’t think that’s it. I think, rather, it’s the lack of a suitably compelling editorial POV. I’ve got to wonder why Anna Wintour and other higher-ups at Condé haven’t yet stepped in to either cushion the fall or stop it altogether.

(Too late to bring in Janice Min as editor? Probably, and Janice herself wrote to me some time ago to emphasize her happiness in Los Angeles. In any event, in view of the current economic climate, Condé isn’t going to write the kind of check needed for Min’s services.)

Given all this, you might ask, “Is Radhika Jones’ Vanity Fairdoing anything right?” As a matter of fact, it is. The front of the book, especially the Vanities section, has been cleaned up and is much easier to navigate. The table of contents has been simplified, which is a help. Picture captions, which for years were mysteriously positioned and overwrought, have been rethought. All very real, if small, improvements.

Also, Jones, to her credit, has kept some of the same splendid writers who have been with the book forever. She has, of course, introduced some new ones as well. The story mix is perfectly sound: pieces about power, money, scoundrels, sex and crime.

But here comes the however: We’ve not yet seen any “holy shite, ya gotta be kidding me!” pieces—the kind of buzzy stories that helped propel the magazine to superstardom. Are they in the pipeline?

The September issue carries a highly quotable feature by Lisa Brennan-Jobs, Steve Jobs’ daughter, in which she colorfully expands on her cold relationship with Apple’s co-founder. There’s been lots of media pick-up. The caveat is that the piece is an excerpt from Brennan-Jobs’ book “Small Fry,” which drops next month, and is not a commissioned exclusive.

Is VF failing under Radhika Jones? No. It would be wrong to say that. It remains a fine magazine by conventional standards. It is, though, different these days and, I think it’s fair to say, less exciting. Ideally, every issue of VF should be electrifying, a guilty pleasure of manifold delights. That’s been the magazine’s defining DNA for decades.

I’m hopeful that, one way or another, Condé Nast—our greatest publisher of top-flight glossies—manages to restore the magazine to its preeminent position within the culture. That would be a good thing. America is dragging and the mood is dark as we move toward summer’s end, 2018. We could use a truly vibrant Vanity Fair again for a monthly pick-me-up. There’s still time.
source | foliomag

 

[Benn98]

Thanks for posting this article, MMA!

I think it perfectly outlines both the good and the bad of VF under Radhika. Carter had a 'think big' approach which even resulted in his favour when he didn't anticipate it. Last year's Angelina Jolie exclusive and subsequent brouhaha was a perfect example. He never had to resort to Dylan Jones-like tactics to create his own hype. It just happened due to the subjects he chose, the type who always seemed up to play. Which brashy millionaire will now seek the magazine out to cover them? Part of wanting the limelight is that it has to be the 'right' limelight.
Maybe with Carter it was just luck coupled with intuition and ruthless savvy, but that's what helped propel the magazine and kept it permanently on our radar.

What Radhika is doing is handing VFs spot on a silver platter to Rolling Stone, who btw has been aching to resume their role as the cultural stalwart for years now. Kudos, Anna!

 

[dodencebt]

I was going to post that NYTimes article because I find it so confusing, especially coming from someone like Friedman. It's very speculative and scarce.

Yes, I agree that it is an odd "coincidence" that the cover features Michelle Williams in Louis Vuitton, shot by Collier Schorr. But this is nothing new and I don't see the need for reporting it. It's how magazines get money! Was the intent bringing Jones down? And what I find even more confusing is that there are no mentions of other covers where this has happened for comparison, because this is not a unique issue. We have seen countless covers where Karl has shot Chanel or Fendi brand ambassadors, wearing Chanel or Fendi. And then the entire spreads have been Chanel or Fendi. I'm sure there are tons more examples that I can't remember off the top of my head but have spotted at some point.

 

[ellastica]

I too found this article puzzling when I read it yesterday afternoon. Vanessa's writing is hard to follow, vague, yet utterly condescending.

She sounds completely confused as to the audience she's actually writing for. Why bother pointing out those who aren't familiar with editorial credits? She's got a captive NYT fashion audience reading her stuff who don't need to "face it" but rather would appreciate deeper levels of insight rather than wikipedia like entries dressed up as revelations she just discovered herself.

About 3/4 of my way into the article I learn about Collier's connection to the MeToo movement. But that's after Vanessa rambles on about how confrontational Michelle's cover image is. Choosing the most obviously sexed up naughty secretary in leather skirt shot for the cover, that's unheard of in the publishing industry!

"If you want to make a statement about entering a new era, Ms. Schorr is the obvious photographer to do it."
What's the statement? Who's the less obvious choice?

What was the point of this article? Did Vanessa ever figure out her audience or the name of the LV spokesperson she quoted? I would have appreciated some sort of critical thinking or summation at the end of all of this. Instead Vanessa ends things with...

"According to a Louis Vuitton spokeswoman, the brand-cover mind meld was “a happy coincidence.” Or perhaps a sign of the times, whether you buy the serendipity or not."

 

[GivenchyAddict]

^This article is useless as we all know that Dazed media ( Dazed, Another,..) sells their front cover to brand for example. Plus, Radhika Jones just try to make her magazine survives. She just arrives in a company which decides to shut down every magazine that could make them lost money. I am not into VF since Carter's departure but I am always against this kind of article for newly appointed EIC. Building a magazine takes a lot time even more now when taking some creative risk can cost your job.

 

[madame_georgiana]

All the money is gone and all the writers that made you want to read VF are dead. Graydon is far more to blame than Radhika, his VF was a shell of it's self in the last few years, rarely anything interesting but a few gems. His ego, salary, and out-dated spending habits on shoots is what killed VF. But let's blame the new young female editor...Typical.

 

[MissMagAddict]

BY THE NUMBERS

The Stars of September
Who makes the cut for the most important month in women’s fashion magazines? Historically, white women. But things are changing.



See the rest of the article at nytimes.com
Lots of charts and graphs

 

[mepps]

VF was already dying and irrelevant when Graydon decided to step down from his throne.
He sucked out everything that was great about VF, when he decided to use it as a pulpit for his political ideas. Like a fashion house, VF has certain house codes set by it's founder. A certain way of being, that was responsible for it's initial success, and what carried it through the lean years. Graydon did a lot that was great for VF, but his ego also made him think he could shape the magazine into an extension of himself. I stopped subscribing to VF years ago. It just became so insufferable.

Radhika is terrible. Nothing she's done in her short time has enticed me to re-subscribe.
Either she has no idea who her audience is, or she doesn't care. Either way she's flailing miserably and it's painful to watch.

 

[MissMagAddict]

Givhan checks in...

Beyoncé’s Vogue cover is historic but not iconic
by Robin Givhan August 6



Beyoncé’s latest Vogue cover has been birthed into the world, and it is lovely. Which is a compliment. It’s historic, because it’s the first cover shot by an African American photographer.

As a fashion image, it’s neither surprising nor particularly memorable. After all, giant floral headdresses are having a moment.



There are two versions of the Vogue cover, one in which Beyoncé has donned a long ivory shirtdress from Gucci and an elaborate floral headpiece crafted by the British firm Rebel Rebel, and another in which she is wearing a multicolored, tiered dress from Alexander McQueen. It’s the former image that has, by far, the greatest resonance. It’s the picture that hints at emotion.

The image recalls the aesthetic in the performer’s groundbreaking video opus “Lemonade,” with its lyrical visual references to plantations, slavery and Julie Dash’s “Daughters of the Dust.” For all the styling effort that went into the picture, from the intricacies of the dress to the grandeur of the headpiece, the photograph itself has an enticingly slapdash, fuzzy imperfection. In this era of high-definition everything, Beyoncé herself is almost blurry. It’s as if the viewer is looking at an image of her on an rabbit-eared antenna TV from the 1960s. The shadows are harsh; the fabric backdrop is rumpled. In many ways, it looks like a test shot snapped before the final, glossy, impeccable one is taken. The message in photographer Tyler Mitchell’s work is that the viewer is on-set and in-the-moment.

His technique is powerful. He situates the viewer face-to-face with Beyoncé in a way that feels pre-digital. But then. What? Beyoncé offers up a sidelong glance that’s part Mona Lisa and part proud, aloof, self-confident, regal black woman. She offers up the Beyoncé brand. And while society has not reached a point at which the full humanity of black women is taken as a given and this full-throated message of self-worth bears repeating again and again, it does not negate the sense of Beyoncé déjà-vu.

This is stripped-down Beyoncé. It’s an alternative to the glamorous star in the mermaid gown, the new age feminist in the stark leotard, the gritty street-wise chick in athleisure-wear and cornrows and the earth mother in a gilded crown. In the magazine, the singer notes that she wanted to be photographed as natural as possible to underscore the importance of body acceptance. “I think it’s important for women and men to see and appreciate the beauty in their natural bodies. That’s why I stripped away the wigs and hair extensions and used little makeup for this shoot.”

The suggestion is that by shunning fake hair and mascara, some truth is revealed. But no. Nothing is divulged. It’s simply a retelling of the same story with different costumes and more interesting lighting.



Mitchell’s work is a milestone in the magazine’s 126-year history. Vogue also reports that, at 23, Mitchell is also among the youngest photographers to shoot a cover. Mitchell has worked for the Vogue brand before, photographing a story earlier this year on gun control activists for Teen Vogue. The youth-focused, digitally rooted magazine, particularly under former editor in chief Elaine Welteroth, gained a reputation for having an inclusive, socially conscious sensibility. And Vogue.com, which has a short feature on Mitchell, is notably more diverse than the print publication.

Mitchell was among a handful of photographers Vogue editors suggested for the Beyoncé story and, recognizing the possibility of making history, the singer selected him. A host of stories and social media chatter have been devoted to the amount of influence and control Beyoncé was allowed over the fashion spread. Her longtime collaborator Kwasi Fordjour styled the shoot. But Vogue veteran Tonne Goodman served as the fashion editor. Beyoncé and Vogue’s editor in chief, Anna Wintour, mutually agreed on the images that were ultimately published.

Any control Vogue extended to its cover subject did not reveal itself in the fashion she models. Beyoncé wears brands that have a regular presence in the pages of the magazine: Gucci, Valentino, Alexander McQueen, Louis Vuitton, Dior and Philip Treacy. The freshest name is Wales Bonner. Helmed by London-born Grace Wales Bonner, it’s a menswear label inspired by African and Afro-Caribbean cultural history. Bonner, who is biracial, crafted a custom bedazzled white pantsuit that Beyoncé wears with her hair plaited in long, thick cornrows.



There is a bit of sameness to the images. In each picture, Beyoncé has a similar expression: distant, stoic … a hint of froideur. In more than one, she poses with her legs akimbo, claiming her space in her own version of man-spreading. Ultimately, her level of control mostly reveals itself in her non-interview. She offers up a series of statements — “as told to” — Jezebel culture editor Clover Hope on topics chosen by Beyoncé. She believes in opening doors for other people of color. She has matured a lot since her 20s, discovered slave owners in her ancestry, found motherhood to be a great responsibility and was really proud of her performance at Coachella. She also had an emergency Caesarean to deliver her twins; the recovery was challenging; her body is different, and that’s okay.

There have been myriad photographs of Beyoncé. Many have been stunning, including the ones taken by Mitchell. But the iconic performer does not have a body of iconic portraits — photographs in which independent observers are able to cast her in a larger cultural context. That’s a shame, because photography has the ability to capture the essence of a subject for the historical record in a way that video does not. A portrait allows the eye to linger, to engage and to assess. It is the decisive moment. And that is beyond Beyoncé’s control.
source | wapo

 

[MissMagAddict]

Peter Brant Cuts $1.5M Deal With Himself for Interview Magazine
Interview is all set to relaunch in September with a transgender cover model and a big photographer, but Brant needs to pay himself first.



Interview magazine is indeed heading for a fall “relaunch” sans more than $3 million in unpaid debts because of legal moves by its owner, Peter Brant.

Former publishing magnate Brant is pushing a speedy sale process for Interview’s assets, demanding that the yet-to-be-approved deal close by the end of August, a deal in which Brant is seller and buyer.

By filing for liquidation, which requires a company to be in such financial straits that it is unable to afford to restructure, much less pay creditors, Interview is able to avoid paying all of its $3.3 million in debts to various partners, freelancers and even longtime staffers. In the few months before the bankruptcy, Brant set up a new holding company, Singleton LLC, which holds his single $8 million secured claim on Interview’s assets, stemming from his regular cash injections to keep the magazine running.

Now it’s Singleton that has executed a deal to buy Interview’s assets for $1.5 million. So, in effect, Brant has agreed to pay himself $1.5 million for a magazine he already owned, but was supposedly tired of floating, and put into liquidation.

He’s demanding that the sale to himself close by Aug. 31 — fortuitous timing as Interview is set to publish a September, or fall, issue featuring transgender model Hari Nef, WWD has learned. The photographer is said to be the team of Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin, representatives of whom could not be reached for comment. But Brant closing the deal with himself is necessary for a proper relaunch, with the proposed purchase agreement noting “time is of the essence.” Hopefully he will pay Inez & Vinoodh.

Although a spokeswoman for Interview said in late May after the magazine filed for Chapter 7 liquidation that it had been losing money for some time, it doesn’t seem that was the issue for Brant. He’s buying the same magazine, which is even set to operate under the same leadership team as before, including his eldest daughter Kelly Brant. A representative for Interview and Brant could not be reached for comment on Thursday.

What does seem to be an issue for the Brants is paying the people they work with. Even high-level members of its masthead ended up working over the last few years without full payment, like editorial director Fabien Baron, who left in April over being owed $600,000.

Although the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy is on board with wrapping up the sale of Interview by month’s end, there are two possible hurdles that could arise. One is that this being a liquidation, Interview’s assets have to go through a public auction where higher bids from outside parties can come through, which could drive up the price and squeeze Brant out, if he’s unwilling to increase the amount he’s willing to pay himself. There’s some industry chatter of there being interest in the magazine, but it’s not worth the $10 million it would cost to pay off Brant’s secured claim and gain the assets.

The other possible hurdle is Baron, who recently won court approval to subpoena some financial records of Brant’s and Singleton’s in an effort to suss out how and why Interview filed for bankruptcy in the first place and what makes up his secured claim. Baron is now having to push for a delay of the sale in order to comply with his subpoena schedule, which conflicts with the expedited, but the trustee is refusing to alter the time line.

Baron’s lawyers noted in a Monday letter that with the sale schedule as is, which was proposed only after the subpoena schedule, there will be no time to review the documents being sought. Considering the proposed sale is to an “insider,” Brant, they’re pushing for extra scrutiny.
source | wwd

 

[axiomatic]

Was the intent bringing Jones down?

Regardless of what one thinks of Jones, it's interesting that Neuhas and Friedman, two connected, veteran journalists published their articles a day apart. This was only the second column Neuhas has published on Folio this year