The Business of Magazines

I don’t know how to feel about Anna’s note. I’m optimistic and I really believe it is genuine and global outrage made people realize how they have a responsibility in this. I also find it quite interesting how the fashion industry, out of all the industries, is the most impacted regarding those questions...

The sad reality is that it took CN to be in trouble and social issues to have a global impact for them to realize that the system wasn’t fair. Case in point, in the opulent world of CN, ALT did not realize his responsability as the creative director of Vogue. So, it’s a general wake-up call...

But I also know that for years, it was known that something as simple as having a black model on a cover of a magazine resulted in lower sales. So, the problem was deeper and that problem was reflected in the positions of those companies.

The irony is that US Vogue, with all it flaws has always been ahead for this questions compared to all of the Vogue editions and others big publications...

The fact for example that it took 5 years for VP to have a black girl on a cover, after a whole issue dedicated to a black model (at a time when France’s racist ways resurfaced) is telling more about the demographic than the editors themselves in a way. Those micro things created a toxic environment for diversity discussions.

In a way, maybe Social Media and the bandwagon people are kinda forced to follow, will ease the process.

We have to start somewhere and if it’s the time, let it be.
 
Regardless of visibility given to whichever political/social issue seems trendy at the moment, this is a reckoning for brands across industries that younger & more diverse demos want more than lipservice in marketing campaigns & editorials. They want their workplace and employees to be given ethical and fair treatment too. As fashion & media have historically been particularly gated and catered to the already wealthy as its labor force, this change will be quite stark.
 
US Vogue has made a very clear effort to increase diversity in its pages for the past few years. Three Black women have been on the cover so far this year and Black models and models of color have a very significant presence in editorials as well. I’ve seen them recently highlighting Black artists and fashion designers, too. I get that in this climate Anna might come off as posturing, but from my perspective she’s been putting her money where her mouth is, for years, when it comes to the contents of Vogue. And keep in mind she sent this note 5 days before the Rapoport + unequal pay scandal, not as a response to it.

Diversity and inclusion have to extend far beyond the visible pages of Vogue and based on accounts by both current and former staffers, there hasn’t been any effort to do that. Black and nonblack POC are sharing awful stories about working not just for Condé but under Vogue specifically and while no job is perfect or without its struggles, no job should leave you feeling the way these individuals have been made to feel after working there. I’m not ready to applaud Anna for putting effort into what we all get to see up close when behind the scenes there’s a completely different story going on.
 
Diversity and inclusion have to extend far beyond the visible pages of Vogue and based on accounts by both current and former staffers, there hasn’t been any effort to do that. Black and nonblack POC are sharing awful stories about working not just for Condé but under Vogue specifically and while no job is perfect or without its struggles, no job should leave you feeling the way these individuals have been made to feel after working there. I’m not ready to applaud Anna for putting effort into what we all get to see up close when behind the scenes there’s a completely different story going on.


I don’t know which former employees spoke out or what exactly they’ve said happened, but I think a good general rule is that former employees complaints, unless alleging serious misconduct, should be taken with a grain of salt. Very rarely does an ex-employee have nothing bad to say about a former workplace or boss. Regardless of their race, they’re not exactly objective observers. For example, someone I worked with was let go last week. She posted on social media that she was fired because she asked for a brief leave so she could spend time with activism/protesting. I know for an absolute fact that she was fired for forging a document and I know that she did not even bother to deny the forgery at work. However, she invented a different story, taking advantage of George Floyd’s murder and the resulting upset to paint herself in a positive light, and to garner sympathy and attention on social media. And that’s not all, she also had some negative and untrue things to say about her now former coworkers. Anna has been well documented as a tough boss to put it mildly, shelving people’s hard work without explanation, and at times belittling people. That former employees had an unpleasant experience is easy to believe. However, if they’re alleging that they were being targeted due to race, well that’s a serious allegation that deserves to be investigated. But my understanding is that the environment there is tough on everyone, even very well connected, well educated, and wealthy Caucasian employees have their complaints. Hell, there’s a best selling book and a hit movie on the subject!
 
Last edited:
I don’t know which former employees spoke out or what exactly they’ve said happened, but I think a good general rule is that former employees complaints, unless alleging serious misconduct, should be taken with a grain of salt. Very rarely does an ex-employee have nothing bad to say about a former workplace or boss. Regardless of their race, they’re not exactly objective observers. For example, someone I worked with was let go last week. She posted on social media that she was fired because she asked for a brief leave so she could spend time with activism/protesting. I know for an absolute fact that she was fired for forging a document and I know that she did not even bother to deny the forgery at work. However, she invented a different story, taking advantage of George Floyd’s murder and the resulting upset to paint herself in a positive light, and to garner sympathy and attention on social media. And that’s not all, she also had some negative and untrue things to say about her now former coworkers. Anna has been well documented as a tough boss to put it mildly, shelving people’s hard work without explanation, and at times belittling people. That former employees had an unpleasant experience is easy to believe. However, if they’re alleging that they were being targeted due to race, well that’s a serious allegation that deserves to be investigated. But my understanding is that the environment there is tough on everyone, even very well connected, well educated, and wealthy Caucasian employees have their complaints. Hell, there’s a best selling book and a hit movie on the subject!

This is always standard response for workplace complaints - that every job sucks. If every former employee has had a horrendous experience & is being overworked/underpaid (regardless of race) then we shouldn't have to tolerate it anymore. Younger generation has extreme levels of job precarity making them (us) more likely to be willing to speak out about it. What's there to lose? The only way it's going to change is by putting pressure on companies to fix it. If every internal avenue is exhausted, then yes airing your grievances on social media & turning it into a PR disaster is what's left.
 
This is always standard response for workplace complaints - that every job sucks. If every former employee has had a horrendous experience & is being overworked/underpaid (regardless of race) then we shouldn't have to tolerate it anymore. Younger generation has extreme levels of job precarity making them (us) more likely to be willing to speak out about it. What's there to lose? The only way it's going to change is by putting pressure on companies to fix it. If every internal avenue is exhausted, then yes airing your grievances on social media & turning it into a PR disaster is what's left.

I sort of agree with what you’re saying, on the one hand. I do think there’s something of an epidemic of underpaid and undervalued young workers, people working jobs well below their education and experience levels. But that’s a separate issue from race-based discrimination. In the past decade or so Condé has been forced to cut spending tremendously, even the big shots are taking pay cuts and not getting their usual bonuses, entire magazines are being shut down. I think Condé relies on the cachet and connections available to you as a Vogue staffer to balance the lower salary. Plus many of the employees at these magazines have their name on a trust or two. If you’re among the few who don’t come from a place of wealth and the connections didn’t work out for you, I can see why they’d resent the low pay, but I can also see that Condé can’t afford to throw generous salaries at easily replaced assistants. So there’s that. People have been calling out Anna as a mean boss and Vogue as a tough workplace for decades. What I want to know is, are the new complaints being brought forward basically more of the same? Are people using this moment, where racial discrimination in the workplace is being called out, to vent about their generally unpleasant job/boss/paycheck on social media because they think it’s an opportune moment to jump on a bandwagon or are they finally feeling empowered to voice their experiences of actual minority-based discrimination? “I’m overworked and underpaid and I’m not overly fond of my boss” is a sentiment likely shared by most people on earth. But that’s sort of “all lives matter”-ing the specific complaints of racist workplace practices being brought against Condé Nast/BA right now. I just want to know, is Anna just a very tough boss or is she also a racist dirtbag?
 
The Cut Suspends Jane Larkworthy
Bon Appétit Vows to Change
There have been changes at the two publications since the emergence of the photograph of Bon Appétit's former top editor Adam Rapoport in brownface.


Kathryn Hopkins

The Cut’s beauty editor at large Jane Larkworthy has been suspended for a derogatory comment she made on an Instagram post showing former Bon Appétit editor in chief Adam Rapoport in brownface.

The photograph was posted to the social media site in 2013 by Rapoport’s wife Simone Shubuck and shows the two in brownface for Halloween with the caption “#TBT me and my papi @rapo4 #boricua,” a reference to Puerto Ricans. At the time, Larkworthy commented, “This was so dead on, I was so afraid of you two that night!”

When a Bon Appétit freelancer unearthed the since-deleted post Monday, it caused outrage among many and led some former and current staffers to share their negative experiences of working at the magazine as people of color. Among them, staffer Sohla El-Waylly alleged that only white editors are paid for the video appearances on Bon Appétit’s popular YouTube channel. The day ended with Rapoport announcing that he was stepping down to “reflect on the work” that he needs to do as a human being.

The Cut, the fashion vertical of New York Magazine, acted Tuesday evening, with editor in chief and president Stella Bugbee stating in a Twitter post that Larkworthy’s comment “does not represent the values of The Cut, and we’re sorry for the pain it has caused, in particular to the Latinx community.”

“This comment runs counter to the inclusivity we aim to foster at The Cut, both in our workplace and in our storytelling. We are suspending Jane while we investigate and determine the course forward,” she added.

On Monday, Larkworthy issued her own apology on Twitter, calling her comment on the photograph, which was taken in 2004, “shameful.” “What’s even more shameful is that I didn’t approach the people in the photograph at the time and tell them why this was racist,” she added. She has written a column for The Cut since 2018 and became the site’s beauty editor at large in April 2019. According to a release at the time, that meant that in addition to her column, she would produce two features a month in a variety of formats, from product reviews to trend stories to interviews.

It is understood that Larkworthy was on staff, but on a part-time basis.

As for Bon Appétit and sister publication Epicurious, in a lengthy Instagram post Wednesday, the staffs of the Condé Nast-owned food brands called the photo “deeply offensive” and “horrific” on its own, but added that it “speaks to the much broader and long-standing impact of racism at these brands.”

“While we’ve hired more people of color, we have continued to tokenize many BIPOC staffers and contributors in our videos and on our pages,” said one part of the post. “Many new BIPOC hires have been in entry-level positions with little power, and we will be looking to accelerate their career advancement and pay. Black staffers have been saddled with contributing racial education to our staffs and appearing in editorial and promotional photo shoots to make our brands seem more diverse. We haven’t properly learned from or taken ownership of our mistakes.”

They added, though, that things will change, including prioritizing people of color for the editor in chief candidate pool, anti-racism training, resolving any pay inequities and assisting Condé Nast’s internal investigation “to hold individual offenders accountable.” Molly Baz, a white senior food editor with a strong social media following, previously wrote that she would not appear in any Bon Appétit videos until her BIPOC colleagues receive equal pay and are fairly compensated for their appearances.

On Tuesday, Condé Nast named Amanda Shapiro acting deputy director. She was previously the editor of Healthyish, a digital offshoot of Bon Appétit. The New York Times reported that she told staffers that she plans to be in the role on an interim basis and will push for a person of color to take on the editor in chief title.

But this came as more offensive social media posts resurfaced. This time, they were by Matt Duckor, a vice president for Condé Nast, who was previously in charge of Bon Appétit’s popular videos. Among other comments, he tweeted “working out is so gay” and said “@SamSifton are you in Harlem with the black people and Asian same-sex couples? #kidding #diversity.”

According to Insider, he apologized for the tweets, which he said were more than 10 years old, but has since made his account private. Condé Nast did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Duckor.
source | wwd
 
Duckor is out next.
He also heads up Vogue video programming.




ETA: He’s out.

 
Last edited:
I think Condé relies on the cachet and connections available to you as a Vogue staffer to balance the lower salary. Plus many of the employees at these magazines have their name on a trust or two. If you’re among the few who don’t come from a place of wealth and the connections didn’t work out for you, I can see why they’d resent the low pay, but I can also see that Condé can’t afford to throw generous salaries at easily replaced assistants.

In and of itself that hiring practice is discriminatory toward racial minorities. Considering how much their execs make, pretty sure Conde can revise their salary levels.
 
In and of itself that hiring practice is discriminatory toward racial minorities. Considering how much their execs make, pretty sure Conde can revise their salary levels.

Exactly. These insane salary practices have been put into place so that only a certain type of person can last long enough as an underpaid assistant or a junior editor with mommy and daddy's help, while getting the top Conde Nast management even richer.
 
Even when someone gets as far as being hired, in any industry that's seem as glamorous, there are so many people wanting in, that companies have no impetus to offer decent terms and conditions for entry level (or even mid level) jobs.

For every person who can barely afford to continue in the job or who hates the conditions, there are hundreds more who would stampede over them in order to have their own chance at the dream - and companies know this and exploit it.

Being publically called out will lead to a momentary display of conscience and token sacrifices, but the overall situation will not be so easily resolved. Business profits are generally not built on human decency, but off the back of exploitation somewhere in the chain. And if costs can be cut, they will be.
 
Being publically called out will lead to a momentary display of conscience and token sacrifices, but the overall situation will not be so easily resolved. Business profits are generally not built on human decency, but off the back of exploitation somewhere in the chain. And if costs can be cut, they will be.

To that point, the call outs are a means to an end & I doubt anyone wants it to stop with a single exec being fired and someone new being put in their place. For example, look at the unionization efforts across media right now.
 
I would be really shocked if Anna somehow goes down on this. Not only because of CN's seemingly unshakable faith on her, but also cause the drama is not *that* scandalous imo. I'm sure there are people within Vogue and CN that are seeing this as perfect excuse to get rid of her though.
 



Isn’t this the same guy who accused Alison Roman of dressing as a “Ch*la”, when it turns out she was dressed as Amy Winehouse? When confronted with the truth, he doubled down and, in my opinion, made himself look quite foolish. I think Anna intended to leave next year, after the election/inauguration of, she hopes, a new president. I don’t think she’ll be forced out like this, but I could be wrong.

The most vocal of the Vogue whistleblowers, the one who called working at Vogue the most miserable experience of her life, etc. used to post frequently about how blessed she was to work there, She talked about how much she was learning on the job after coming to it with limited experience, how happy she was with changing culture at Condé Nast. She interned there, then came back 5 years later as a salaried employee and said it was a dream come true. A few years later her story seems quite different. I’m sure the receipts are easy enough to find to back up what I’m saying.
 
Isn’t this the same guy who accused Alison Roman of dressing as a “Ch*la”, when it turns out she was dressed as Amy Winehouse? When confronted with the truth, he doubled down and, in my opinion, made himself look quite foolish. I think Anna intended to leave next year, after the election/inauguration of, she hopes, a new president. I don’t think she’ll be forced out like this, but I could be wrong.

Yes, he’s the one. He gets off on it, I guess. Just another troll.
 
There are a *ton* of rumors swirling tonight on twitter that we should expect her resignation tomorrow. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me but I guess we shall see in the morning...
 
Can Anna Wintour Survive the Social Justice Movement?
A reckoning has come to Bon Appétit and the other magazines of Condé Nast. Can a culture built on elitism and exclusion possibly change?


By Ginia Bellafante

On Monday, as swiftly as a 9-iron taken to a tee at Augusta, Adam Rapoport resigned as the editor in chief of Bon Appétit magazine after a damning Halloween photo circulated on social media that morning. Drawn from the vast insensitivity archives to which so many influential people have made inadvertent submissions, the picture, from 2004, shows him costumed in a tank top and thick chain necklace as his wife’s “papi,’’ the term she attached to it in an Instagram post several years later.

As it happened, Mr. Rapoport had been facing mounting grievance from his staff about the magazine’s demeaning treatment of employees and freelancers of color and the dubious ways in which its popular video division presented culturally appropriated cooking. But these apparently were insufficient grounds for forcing him out.

Over and over, power structures seem to require that accusations of racial bias are documented by photographic evidence — proof to override a reflexive or simply inconvenient skepticism. Police officers abused their authority for decades without consequence. It was not until a growing body of video footage revealed all the brutality, and the systemic prejudice at the heart of it, that the world began to express the outrage there to be mined all along — justice by iPhone.

In that sense, Mr. Rapoport’s ouster at the hands of a camera was entirely fitting. Bon Appétit belongs to Condé Nast, a media empire perhaps unrivaled by any institution on earth in its supplication to image. For decades, both at the level of corporate culture and branded worldview, the company’s lifestyle magazines have held to the notion that there are “right’’ people and wrong people, a determination made by birthright. There are the rich, and there are the dismissible; the great looking, and the condemned — a paradigm that has now become dangerously untenable, and one the company has been striving to change.

Within the Condé Nast framework, autocratic bosses were left to do whatever they pleased — subjugating underlings to hazing rituals with no seeming end point. So much was excusable in the name of beauty and profit. “Difficulty,” Kim France, a former editor in chief of Lucky magazine, told me, “was regarded as brilliance.”

No one at Condé Nast has had more of an outsize reputation for imperiousness wed to native talent than Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, the artistic director of the company and more recently its “global content adviser’’ as well. Mr. Rapoport, who spent 20 years at the company and turned around an ailing product in Bon Appétit, reported to her.

What sort of management cues were to be taken? Famous for a self-regarding style — she might demand that subordinates arrive 30 minutes early for certain meetings she attended — Ms. Wintour was obviously not in the best position to try to convince him, for instance, that he should not ask his assistant (black and Stanford-educated) to clean his golf clubs. (That was one of the many revealing details in a Business Insider exposé of the food magazine that arrived this week.)

Race is a fraught subject at Condé Nast. Several employees of color I spoke with, all of them laid off over the past few years, talked about the challenges they faced. They struggled to be heard or get the resources they needed to do their jobs at the highest levels; they faced ignorance and lazy stereotyping from white bosses when the subject of covering black culture came up; they all said they were exhausted by always having to explain it all.

Even though they were no longer at Condé Nast, not one of them felt free to speak on the record out of fear of retaliation from the company or the concern that they would be looked at as complainers, making it much harder to find work.

One former staff member who is black could not fail to see the irony in being made to go to unconscious bias training — which became mandatory at the company early last year — only then to lose a big chunk of his portfolio shortly thereafter. “I felt so devalued,’’ he said, “after working so hard.’’

Unconscious bias training is supposed to alert you to your blind spots in your perception of people and ideas. But at the level of corporate and creative governance, the programming at Condé Nast has not been seamlessly woven into the company’s broader philosophy. Last month, during a round of layoffs, in which 100 people were let go amid the economic calamities of Covid-19, the company dismissed three Asian-American editors, all of whom covered culture at different publications.

Among the top 10 editorial leaders listed on Vogue’s masthead, all are white. According to a spokesman for Condé Nast, across divisions on Vogue’s editorial side, people of color make up 14 percent of senior managers. On June 5, amid global protests spurred by the death of George Floyd, Ms. Wintour sent a note to her staff, acknowledging that “it can’t be easy to be a Black employee at Vogue,’’ and that the magazine had “not found enough ways to elevate and give space to Black editors, writers, photographers, designers and other creators.”

Although Vogue has made a greater effort to feature black women on its covers in recent years — Rihanna, Serena Williams, Lupita Nyong’o — the gate swings open far more easily for those who are not. And in this particular area, too, legacy weighs heavily. When LeBron James made history as the first black man to grace the cover in 2008, he shared the space with a white supermodel, Gisele Bündchen, who appeared as a damsel in his clutches, an unmistakable reference to King Kong.

A spokesman at Condé Nast admitted that much progress needs to be made in regard to diversity at the company, but he defended Ms. Wintour’s record, pointing out that she has passionately supported various designers of color throughout her career, helping to raise money for them through her work with the Council of Fashion Designers of America. She also installed two black editors to lead Teen Vogue, genuinely radical in its content, one following the other (Elaine Welteroth and then Lindsay Peoples Wagner).

At the same time, Ms. Wintour has presided over Vogue for 32 years, and during that period she has done more to enshrine the values of bloodline, pedigree and privilege than anyone in American media. A brief and very inconclusive list of Ms. Wintour’s assistants in the 21st century includes the Yale-educated daughter of a prominent Miami dance director, the Dartmouth-educated descendant of a major bank president, the Princeton-educated daughter of an Oscar-winning screenwriter and so on. For so long it was central to the Condé Nast ethos that you had to be thin, gorgeous and impeccably credentialed to retrieve someone else’s espresso macchiato.

Even now, as the publishing industry continues to implode and wonderful writers who could really use the work (or at least the prestigious affiliation) abound, Vogue continues to list among its contributing editors people like the German heiress Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis and many others among the well born. Five years ago, Ms. Thurn und Taxis posted a picture on Instagram of a homeless woman reading Vogue, seated on the sidewalk, with the words, “Paris is full of surprises.” Vogue quickly issued a statement, calling the gesture distasteful, and then proceeded to run her byline on its website at least 10 more times

Last year, Grace Coddington, another contributor, who had held enormous influence over what was shot for Vogue and how, in her many years as the magazine’s creative director, was photographed with her collection of “*****’’ jars, racist ceramics depicting African-American women as servile maids.

Ms. Wintour clearly believes that she can break from the past and kill off any vestiges of a system steeped in the benighted values for which she has become the corporate avatar. The public apology from Bon Appétit was quite startling in its admission of failure, particularly its concession that the magazine “continued to tokenize” the people of color that it did hire.

As part of her contribution to this new wave of progressivism, Ms. Wintour wrote a piece for Vogue.com a week after the death of George Floyd, aligning herself with Black Lives Matter and calling on Joe Biden to select an African-American woman as his running mate.

For someone who had seemed so averse to activism as the world has roiled from inequality for years, it felt like a desperate grasp for relevance. A spokesman for the company bristled at the suggestion, arguing that it is Condé Nast’s job “to cover what’s going on in the culture in the moment.”

As it happens, André Leon Talley, who recently wrote a memoir about his complicated relationship with Ms. Wintour, as a black man and longtime former editor at Vogue, also has a lot to say about the current moment. This week in a radio interview with Sandra Bernhard, he offered his opinion about his ex-boss’s professed transformation.

“I wanna say one thing, Dame Anna Wintour is a colonial broad; she’s a colonial dame,” he told Ms. Bernhard. “I do not think she will ever let anything get in the way of her white privilege.”
source | nytimes
 
I don’t know how plausible tomorrow is but this ‘situation’ over the past few days has definitely accelerated it. While people are going on about salaries and the veracity of ex-employee claims (white people are also calling out the culture at Vogue but yes, let’s view the black employees suspiciously. No wonder posters are Anna stans on here), they are missing the forest from the trees.

I read an article on People discussing ALT’s thoughts on the internal memo and while he has his timing wrong, he was correct in saying that Samira’s appointment has shifted the axis of power in the industry.

Just like Edward’s appointment made UK Vogue the cover to land, that’s now HB under Samira, because it’s an American brand, the oldest fashion magazine in the country, and truly a fresh start. Whether you all complain about her lack of a defined eye, that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, especially when she starts selling. She will have support (I will be subscribing). Like I mentioned in another post, Samira is friends with Tracee and Kerry and the public wants authentic, meaningful inclusivity now more than ever from the fashion industry. I fully expect to see those two on the cover of HB, probably before the year is out.

Meanwhile, Anna is screwed. The public wants inclusivity. How is she going to approach Kerry, Tracee, Viola, Regina King, Issa Rae for a cover now? Because of Samira’s appointment? The beginning of the second civil rights movement in America?

They will see right through that BS. The public will too. I can just imagine the bad press she will get - Anna now is putting X on the cover because she got called out. Accusations of racism will be everywhere (rightfully so). And don’t assume the other black women she has tokenized on her covers will feel loyalty to her. Lupita doesn’t have to rely on the fashion industry to boost her career anymore in Hollywood because of #metoo. And Zendaya has tens of millions of IG followers. I don’t imagine them wanting a cover now and dealing with the press and social media dragging.

Really, what is Anna going to do now? Really? There’s nothing she can do. Period. If she’d given covers to Kerry, Viola, Tracee, etc. 5, 6 or 7 years ago when I said she should, Anna might have survived this.

I thought Edward would cause Anna’s demise but who knew it would be Samira Nasir, COVID-19 and BLM. In the words of Anna’s fave, it’s what she deserves. Pass the popcorn :lol:

There are a *ton* of rumors swirling tonight on twitter that we should expect her resignation tomorrow. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me but I guess we shall see in the morning...
 
Last edited:
If Anna is resigning, I want every incumbent executive of CN to equally resign.

How convenient is it that the woman will take the fall, while the men will get away with it? They're all equally at fault. If Anna will take accountability, the suits who enabled her must be held accountable too. Regardless of gender and race.

"I was scared of AW" should not be an excuse.

If you all want to call out the inequality, call this one out too. Women, yet again, are held to higher standard than men. This is inequality in its highest form.

Roger Lynch, Wolfgang Blau, Danielle Carrig, Pamela Drucker Mann, Stan Duncan, Deirdre Findlay, Mike Goss, Oren Katzeff, Sam Morgan - ALL OF THEM.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
213,129
Messages
15,210,465
Members
87,077
Latest member
inclined
Back
Top