The Business of Magazines

I can't wait for Elle to produce its "blue/green issue". What's that about? Algae? Underwater plants? Ethical swimsuits? I am genuinely interested to know what's going on with those two colours as the theme of one issue...
 
I can't wait for Elle to produce its "blue/green issue". What's that about? Algae? Underwater plants? Ethical swimsuits?

:lol:

I dislike American Elle, but that's intriguing. I'm starting to get tired of all these "green"-themed articles though. I get that it's an urgent and timely subject, but it's gotten too pushy. I imagine that's what the green refers too. And perhaps blue because it's a timely color; it evokes serenity, maturity, stability, all those things we're currently striving for. That's my wild guess, I'm curious too.
 
What happened to the 'Magazine Sale Date' thread idea? :unsure:
 
Does anyone have any info on new magazine launches? I'm looking for ones that are on their first issue or about to come out. Can be from big publishing houses or indies - the more varied and global the better.
I already have: M, Lurve, Love, Kaliedoscope, Wired UK...
Thanks!
 
James Brown, former editor of Loaded, considers the men's magazine market in Sunday's Observer. His last paragraph is the most interesting.

With so much out there for men to read and watch, who needs monthly magazines?

Lads' mags like Maxim are struggling because men are spoilt for choice, says former Loaded editor James Brown.

The Observer, Sunday 5 April 2009

Boom, there goes another men's magazine: Maxim, repositioned as an internet offering but in reality unable to sustain itself as a print title. Maxim started out in the mid Nineties as a "me-too" publication launched on the heels of Loaded and FHM, but became the biggest men's mag in the world when its owner, Felix Dennis, rolled the format out in foreign markets, including the US. Now Maxim is extinct in its country of origin. It followed the quiet death last month of Arena, which expired due to old age and lack of personality.

There are many reasons why the monthly men's magazines sector is collapsing. They became too narrow in focus, driven mainly by covers selling sex, and they were rendered less relevant by the arrival of weeklies (Nuts and Zoo), frees (Shortlist and Sport) and specialist male newspaper supplements (The Mail on Sunday's Live and Observer Sport Monthly). But I would argue there is another reason; the wider male media landscape is now so sophisticated and its audience so well served, there isn't any need to wait 30 days for titles that feel out of date by the time they appear.

Men's media is visible across the board and the content, tone and talent showcased in the first wave of magazine titles now form the mainstay of other male-specific mediums. An editor likes to hear that their magazine makes readers feel like a member of a club, but that club is now moving into different mediums and locations.

Broadcast media have snatched the initiative from print and exhibit an understanding of what men want. In the early nineties, men's media revolved around entertainment such as Baywatch, Radio Five Live's football phone-in 606 and cowboy films on a Sunday afternoon. The market had barely evolved since the 1970s, the days of Pan's People and Jimmy Hill on Match of the Day

What Loaded delivered to advertisers when we launched in 1994 was an understanding of what men were really interested in, rather than what PRs and marketers wanted us to be into. Loaded was unsophisticated, but it acknowledged that men could enjoy a contradictory array of pursuits, from outdoor sports to indoor pub games, new-fangled technology like the internet to the traditional male love of football, war and aggression.

I realised quickly that anything guys felt passionately about worked as a Loaded story. Hanging out with the New Orleans police force or members of The Clash, going trawling from Scarborough or surfing in Newquay. Raving about boxers, golfers and old footballers, or getting wasted on drugs. All could coexist, as long as it was all delivered with authenticity and attitude.

A similar approach is evident in radio, TV and online. Six years ago I wrote about the feminisation of terrestrial TV and suggested that men were being driven into their extra-terrestrial sheds, but men's media has spread and no longer exists solely on obscure satellite channels.

A typical content page in a mid-90s men's magazines consisted of crime, action, sport, humour, travel and motors. Now there's an array of dedicated channels for those subjects. Male-oriented crime drama has arrived in the shape, among others, of The Sopranos, The Shield and The Wire, spawning a new genre of flash, knowing and very male shows.

Sky Sports is probably the most magnetic television brand a man can get. But its magazine shows and lighthearted expert analysis have given it authenticity. Sunday Supplement is the insider's guide to football, where professional writers offer their insights into the game, a Newsnight Review in boots, shorn of pretension.

Soccer AM gives fathers and sons that pan-generational bonding moment, just as Dr Who does; it is the greatest Saturday morning magazine show since the format was invented by the Banana Splits. And Jeff Stelling's panel of former players on Sky's Soccer Saturday, commentating lightheartedly but passionately on matches only they can see, is compulsive viewing. There simply weren't as many great media destinations for men 10 years ago.

Crime and sport are complemented by the terrestrial channels' understanding of the armchair explorer in us all. While we sit in our living rooms, Bruce Parry and Ray Mears drag us away to danger. Parry is the Jeremy Clarkson of the jungle.

Meanwhile, Clarkson's Top Gear reinvented itself by borrowing the live audience format from shows such as Later with Jools Holland and Sky Sports' Soccer AM. The BBC understands that men like seeing other men crossing land and sea in the most basic ways, by bike or by boat.

Comedy is a mainstream TV staple, but by rebranding itself as Dave, UKTV G2 created an immediate entry point for lighthearted banter. The name suggests it is a clever but funny channel that it's OK to like. Strangely enough, I talked to ITV4 a few years ago when it was struggling to raise awareness of its cleverly scheduled channel for men. I suggested changing the name to reflect its nature, possibly by using a bloke's name, as I did with my magazine Jack. When Dave launched a year later, I had to check my notes to make sure it wasn't a figment of my imagination.

So from Bravo to FX to the documentary, sports and crime channels, men were saturated by TV aimed at them, just as men's titles grew stale. Magazines are static, but programming is instant; multi-channel TV and catch-up services mean they can be watched anytime.

Television is not the only beneficiary of the creative explosion started by Loaded, FHM et al. Radio also has its success stories. Between 1pm and 9pm, I can happily survive without talking to another human being. I listen avidly to Paul Hawksbee and Andy Jacobs on Talk Sport, who have transplanted the humour and intelligence of 90 Minutes and Goal - titles they used to edit. Like Sky Sports, Loaded or any other mass market male medium that worked, Talk Sport reflects how its audiences truly are, rather than how they should be.

After Talk Sport's lively Bow Time drive time show, I can switch to the BBC's 6 music for Steve Lamacq's indie kid offering before Marc Riley, the former Fall band member who is perhaps the closest we have to a new John Peel, comes on.

All of these broadcast brands give men their community. Loaded's success stemmed from us being the first, but now you no longer need to walk to a newsagent. The same content is out there, but it's being delivered faster and brighter.

For magazines to survive, they need to be more than paper and ink. When Condé Nast publisher Peter Stuart and I started GQ Man of The Year, we knew it could become an annual event, and I don't believe the NME would still be around if it weren't for the tours and club nights it organises. The big publishers failed to understand what the brands might have become with a little more ambition. My great frustration at Loaded was IPC's seeming inability to exploit its potential by turning it into a retail, travel or nightclub brand. That can be explained, in part, by the masses of money the men's sector made initially: publishers did not feel the need to plan for the longer term.

The publishers also failed to capitalise on this initial success by developing a generational string of titles in the way Emap did with music titles in the late eighties and early nineties. A reader who bought Smash Hits in their teens could switch to Kerrang, Q or Mojo - all Emap titles - as they grew older. Owners also failed to build a web of men's titles in the same way women's publishing has, by launching products for all age groups and demographics. So the talent, ideas, and customers have simply gone elsewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/05/magazines-pressandpublishing
 
source | wwd.com

THE PRINTED WORD: Reports of the death of Nylon magazine’s print edition have been greatly exaggerated. On Monday, online sites including Missbehavemag, Jezebel and Gawker posted items about the indie fashion magazine replacing all subscribers’ print editions with an online digital version, referencing an e-mail sent by Nylon president Don Hellinger. In fact, the e-mail only went to a small number of readers who had picked up free subscriptions as a gift-with-purchase this past holiday at Urban Outfitters stores. The e-mail offered that group the choice between a digital and print edition via a toll-free number. “Every single paid subscriber will continue to receive the print magazine,” said Jaclynn Jarrett, publisher of the 225,000 rate base title. “Every initiative we do goes back to the print magazine. It’s the core of our business and it’s not going anywhere.”

Nylon last week celebrated its 10th anniversary with a packed shindig at the Thompson LES hotel in New York, attended by Taylor Momsen, Alexis Bledel, Ciara, Amber Tamblyn, Kat DeLuna, Lydia Hearst and an army of downtown hipsters. This May it will kick off its second annual Nylon music tour hitting 20 cities with sponsors PacSun and Roxy.
 
COVERING THE WINNERS AND LOSERS: Beyond the cover lines and the fashion credits, there’s that celebrated face that can make or break a magazine’s newsstand sales. And if that face is a brunette with a handsome husband and a family the size of a farm team — or wife of an international soccer star — chances are she helped sell the most magazines last year.

A search of numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations found that Angelina Jolie, Victoria Beckham and Lauren Conrad were among the most salable cover faces for fashion monthly titles in 2008, while Nicole Kidman, Carrie Underwood, and Rachel Weisz were the least. That said, the losers shouldn’t bear the entire burden: Several of the worst-selling issues fell in January, which is typically a soft month for newsstand sales, or around the holidays, when consumers were dealing with more pressing economic concerns.

At Vogue, the October issue with Weisz on the cover was the magazine’s poorest seller, with 276,000 copies, while September, unsurprisingly, was Vogue’s best seller at 559,000 copies. The fat fall fashion issue featured Keira Knightley. At Elle, Beckham was the title’s best-selling subject last year. Her January cover sold 413,000 copies. The worst was December’s Underwood, registering 253,611.

Jolie’s July cover of Vanity Fair and her November cover of W were the titles’ best sellers for the year. Vanity Fair’s July issue sold 504,785 single copies, while W’s November issue moved 78,000 issues. “Grey’s Anatomy” star Katherine Heigl was Vanity Fair’s slowest seller, selling 314,000 copies in January. Hilary Swank was the worst performer for W, compounded by the January timing, selling 27,000 on the newsstand.

In Style’s March issue with Desperate Housewife Eva Longoria Parker outsold the rest of the year’s copies, with 888,912. The underperformer was July with Anne Hathaway at 585,170 issues. Marie Claire’s best seller was July, thanks to the magazine nabbing the stars of “Sex and The City” ’ for its cover as the movie hit theaters. The issue sold 440,948 copies. The December issue featuring Jennifer Connelly was the worst performer, with 191,000 copies. Harper’s Bazaar sold 213,195 copies of its March issue when it put bad girl Lindsay Lohan on its cover, but Drew Barrymore didn’t fare as well. Her November cover sold 119,501 copies.

Lucky’s September issue also sold best for the shopping magazine — repeat cover subject Milla Jovovich sold 336,000 issues. But its June issue with Amanda Peet registered 205,000 copies. At Glamour, Jessica Simpson’s June issue sold 775,000 issues, Glamour’s best of the year. Kidman was not as appealing: Her December cover sold 460,000 copies — the worst single-copy sales in recent history for the title. Cosmopolitan sold nearly 2 million copies with Scarlett Johansson in August. But while country-music-singing Simpson fared well for Glamour, she was Cosmo’s worst seller for the year when she appeared on its December issue, which sold 1,565,128 copies.

Though Longoria Parker and Johansson were best sellers for In Style and Cosmopolitan, they fared the poorest for Allure. The duo fell victim to the economic downturn: They appeared on the November and December issues of the beauty title, which both sold 190,000 copies each. Allure’s best seller? Beckham once again — her August cover sold 273,000 copies.

“The Hills” star Conrad was the best seller for Shape, selling 447,969 copies in January, and Jennifer Lopez was the best seller for Self in September (376,000 copies), as the mother of twins was training for her first triathlon. But fewer readers were interested in Renée Zellweger and Kelly Ripa. Zellweger was Self’s worst seller in October, selling 254,000 copies. The November issue of Shape, featuring Ripa, sold 258,200 copies.

wwd / april 10, 2009
 
^^Thanks for posting that, its so interesting to see the numbers like that.And i agree that its not just down to the famous face here (although it helps) it also shows the same celebs who did well at one magazine selling poorly on another because of the economic downturn.etc
 
I'll be interested to see how this new team at POP works out...Dasha's rise has certainly been fast and we'll see how these jet set girls pull this off...
 
That's the thing, not only will there be a new POP - in the marketplace, it'll be POP vs Love, with the two titles competing for sales and reputation.
 
I got my issue of LOVE yesterday, and I really like it. It is different than Katie' POP...I just like the whole design.
 
I can't wait for Elle to produce its "blue/green issue". What's that about? Algae? Underwater plants? Ethical swimsuits? I am genuinely interested to know what's going on with those two colours as the theme of one issue...

Sounks like the algae issue. B)
 
A Guardian blog, Lost In Showbiz, wonders what's going with Peaches' magazine career.

Has Peaches Geldof been axed from her own magazine?

Posted by Marina Hyde
Tuesday 14 April 2009

Don your deerstalkers and grab your magnifying glass, because mystery swirls around Disappear Here – everyone's favourite quarterly/thirdly magazine run by Peaches Geldof.

"For someone who I normally admire for their deep dedication to research," begins a communique from a Disappear Here staff member, "may it be known that I was disappointed to find your article on 'Peaches Geldof's magazine' in Friday's G2."

Goodness. I think we were all slightly disappointed, having initially reserved that berth on the page for a months-long, painstaking investigation into weapons trafficking across the India-Pakistan border, or news that Teri Hatcher has alighted on a new favourite hair product. Perhaps next week.

"For if you would have looked a little harder," continues my correspondent, "or requested a copy of the magazine, you would have found that it is no longer 'Peaches's magazine', as her brief tenure as editor-at-large has come to an end."

Well. I don't recall seeing anything about this in the Court and Social pages. But of course, despite boasting research capabilities to rival most of the major archive institutions, even the meticulous Lost in Showbiz will occasionally drop the ball. And so it was that I began this morning pledging at once to correct the above error.

Alas, though, having looked a little further into the matter, Lost in Showbiz finds itself confused. The initial mistake was made on the basis that at the time of its single previous issue, Disappear Here was described by madam herself as being owned by Peaches, James Brown, and Peaches's manager. "This is basically my job," she declared after the first issue of the magazine had come out. "This is the main focus of my energies."

And now we reach the second issue, what can possibly have happened in between? Has Peaches been sacked? Has she sold the magazine, or had it reposessed from her by shadowy forces unknown? Does she still retain any office presence? A desk? A phone? A couple of winged monkeys?

All of a sudden, my correspondent declines to be drawn any further, and a formal statement from Andy Varley, co-publisher of Disappear Here, arrives in my inbox.

"Peaches is very much involved in the magazine," this reads, "and is a director and equal shareholder of Disappear Here Ltd along with myself and James Brown. Peaches, James and I made a joint decision that she should not be listed in the editorial credits for the Spring/Summer edition as she has not written anything and Peaches would never attribute her name to something which wasn't her own work. The editorial team at Disappear Here are incredibly talented and we are all exceptionally pleased with the current issue."

Mm. Lost in Showbiz does not relish being misled in this faintly pointless way for half the morning, but the Disappear Here team must count themselves fortunate that we have treated their maladroit attempt at misdirection so kindly. Were this in the hands of the Daily Mail, my darlinks, as it may yet be in the coming days, do let me assure you that it would be appearing under the headline "Peaches axed as editor of her OWN magazine after ONE issue".
 
The New York Times Cutting Sections...

...Beginning with the issue of May 10, The New York Times Magazine will no longer contain a regular fashion layout; fashion reporting and photography will continue in the T magazines published every few weeks, and in the weekly Sunday and Thursday Styles sections.
source | nytimes
 
Publications going online-only could risk greatly reduced revenue, rather than see increased savings - MediaGuardian takes a look:

Online-only newspapers 'may lose more than they gain'

Bobbie Johnson
Thursday 16 April 2009

Newspapers that ditch their print editions to go online-only may be jumping the gun unless they are in dire financial straits, according to a study published today.

Researchers from City University in London suggest that many newspaper publishers are likely to lose more than they gain if they cease distributing their printed products in favour of the web.

Their study focused on the fate of Finnish financial newspaper Taloussanomat, which axed its printed version and went online-only in December 2007. The decision was made after the title suffered severe losses – but even going online-only failed to lift it out of the doldrums.

After the move was made, the Finnish title's costs fell by 50% – but its online readership declined by 22% and revenues dropped by more than 75%. The net result was that the publication's owners were no better off after dropping print than they had been previously.

According to calculations based on the Finnish case, a publication would need its costs to significantly outstrip its income to make online-only an attractive option.

"Only if your income is 31% or more lower than your costs, based on this case at least, would you be better off going online-only," said Neil Thurman, senior lecturer in electronic publishing at City and one of the study's authors.

"I don't think it can be dismissed as an aberration," added Thurman. "What we're saying is that unique users were down and page impressions were down ... You can definitely say they underperformed."

A number of factors were apparent in the Finnish title's failure to capitalise on its move to the web, Thurman said. "Just having the print product out there on news stands does promote the website. They also cut their newsroom staff, and so the quality of content did suffer.

"But probably the most important factor is that it's a different medium that is used in a different way. You might spend one and a half minutes a day with the brand online, instead of half an hour a day with a printed product."

In recent months, a number of high-profile titles around the world have announced their decision to drop print editions as they struggle. In America major newspapers including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Christian Science Monitor have gone web-only, while in Britain, Maxim and the Ecologist are among the magazines that have followed the trend.

Evidence about those changes has yet to prove conclusive, but Thurman said he doubted that many titles were doing so badly that going web-only would be a solution.

"If you look across the board, US newspapers are still reaping profits in the mid teens," he said. "Sometimes it's spin because they are in dire straits – it's often dressed up as a strategy when it's actually the only option you've got left."

The study, Taking the Paper Out of News, is being published in Journalism Studies and is also available on the City University website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/16/online-only-newspapers-revenue-fall-taloussanomat
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,461
Messages
15,185,735
Members
86,329
Latest member
domdraper
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->