The Business of Magazines

[caioherrero]

Always wonderful to hear a new fashion magazine coming to the print market. However, it does indeed feels like a missed opportunity not having Anna Dello Russo at the helm of Italian Harper's Bazaar, @[B]caioherrero[/B]. Would have been nice to see Russo give Vogue Italia a run for its money.

This news also reminds me of the announcement of Harper's Bazaar France back in 2013 - that we never saw happen!

Now I hope that Daria manages to put Anna as Creative Director. I miss her fashion stravaganza

 

[vogue28]

Now I hope that Daria manages to put Anna as Creative Director. I miss her fashion stravaganza

Me too! Anna Dello Russo is wasted not being attached to a magazine or fashion brand. She's a total asset to the fashion industry, and has been a blast on Instagram stories over recent days, prancing about in extravagant fashion and having nothing but fun in Paris during couture.

 

[tigerrouge]

From the ongoing serialisation in The Times of Tom Bowers' new book (the times.co.uk)

Meghan and Vogue editor philosophised over tea. Then it went sour

Edward Enninful scored a publicity coup by having the duchess as guest editor but it resulted in a row with the Palace

Edward Enninful, editor of British Vogue, with Meghan and the front cover of the magazine that she guest edited

Tom Bower

Saturday July 16 2022, 6.00pm BST, The Sunday Times

Inspired by her Los Angeles publicists Meghan had emailed British Vogue magazine’s new editor, Edward Enninful. He had worked in magazines since he was 17. The 45-year-old’s dramatic appointment as editor in 2017 confirmed his skills.

Enninful had developed a narrative about his ambition to be a positive force for change. As the son of immigrant Ghanaians, his passion was to promote black women to embrace similar ambitions to white women. What followed during their conversation is inevitably disputed.

Meghan claimed that after consulting her “two dogs nestled across me”, she suggested to Enninful that she guest-edit Vogue’s next issue. According to the editor’s staff, Enninful, rather than Meghan they insist, decided that the duchess would be a perfect money-making vehicle for the magazine. In his version, Enninful suggested that Meghan guest-edit the critically important September issue. She would be the first guest editor at British Vogue. The woman who rarely stepped out of Kensington Palace in clothes costing less than £5,000 saw no reason to inform Palace officials about her decision.

Enninful classed the project top-secret. With unprecedented disguise, Enninful assigned one team to produce the normal September issue unaware that it would never be published. In parallel, Enninful and a team of 13 produced the special issue. The focus would be on 15 women nominated by Meghan as her heroes, or “forces for change”.

Throughout August 2019 as Meghan jetted around Europe she anticipated the publication of the September issue of British Vogue. Enninful’s intense involvement and the secrecy surrounding the special issue may have convinced Meghan that the magazine would turbo-charge her launch in America. That excitement was shared by the editor. “I simply never imagined,” he wrote to the readers, “that in my lifetime, someone of my colour would — or could — enter the higher echelons of our royal family.”

In tandem Meghan was planning to launch The Bench, a children’s book she had written. Hoping that both would be publishing sensations, she had asked Keleigh Thomas Morgan of her PR agency to oversee the publicity. In anticipation of her move to Hollywood, Andrew Meyer, her business manager and the director of her company Frim Fram Inc, once again renewed The Tig trademark. In August, on Harry’s behalf, lawyers registered MWX Trading Ltd at Companies House to apply for trademarks, including Travalyst, Harry’s sustainable travel company.

As an indication of Meghan’s plan to end her role as a funded public servant in Britain, the Palace was initially excluded from giving advice. Over the previous seven months as the magazine took shape, Meghan persuaded herself that she was editing the issue. Regularly, during telephone conferences, she made comments and demanded changes.

“I want to break the internet,” she exclaimed to the editorial staff. Listening to the duchess, the editorial team’s expressions showed silent exasperation. They believed most of her contributions were superficial, lacking rhyme or reason. To avoid confrontation she was never asked to explain. Meghan’s description of those conversations was “philosophising with Ed over a steaming cup of mint tea”.

During the last weeks before publication, Meghan offered advice on publicity. She spoke about “lighting up the internet” inspired by leaks. Enninful was unimpressed. Secrecy, Enninful repeated, was essential for a blockbuster launch. Nevertheless, snippets of information about the issue leaked.

Those irritations came with the turf for Enninful. Shaping a whole issue around the duchess was a journalistic and commercial coup. Promoting Meghan as “the country’s most influential beacon of change”, he gushed in his editorial about this “brilliant, bi-racial American powerhouse” who is a “positive influence everywhere”.

None of Vogue’s staff witnessed Meghan ever pause to consider whether she had crossed the line in her relationship with Enninful. She never appeared to consider the conflict of using her marriage to promote herself. Meghan was uninterested in the boundary which Prince William had identified in a 2017 TV documentary. In a measured way, William had grasped the nettle regarding a royal’s public openness with the media: “One lesson I’ve learnt is you never let them in too far, because it’s very difficult to get them back out again. You’ve got to maintain a barrier and a boundary, because if you cross it, a lot of pain and problems can come from it.” Meghan was dismissive of that caution. Thrilled by the opportunity, she would never have thrown it away.

Enninful and Meghan had selected 15 women identified as game changers who “reshape society in radical and positive ways”. Among them were the primatologist Dian Fossey, whose life was devoted to saving the Rwandan gorillas until her murder in 1985; 82-year-old Jane Fonda; Bonnie Hammer of NBC, who cast Meghan in Suits; Joni Mitchell, the singer-songwriter; and Toni Morrison, the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. There was also the transgender actor Laverne Cox; Adwoa Aboah, a model; Gemma Chan, an actress; Ramla Ali, a boxer; Adut Akech, a model; and the 16-year-old climate-change campaigner Greta Thunberg. The women hailed Meghan as “an ultimate force for change”. And in return, Meghan praised them for representing the unrepresented. The Queen was omitted.

That left the important decision of the cover. Meghan wanted to feature on the cover, just as Kate had done in 2016 to mark Vogue’s centenary. But during many discussions the editorial team persuaded her that it would be “boastful”. In public, Enninful would say that it was Meghan’s decision not to appear on the cover because she wished to remain “humble”. The cover was given to, among others, Salma Hayek, a Hollywood star married to François-Henri Pinault — a French billionaire who happened to be one of Vogue’s leading advertisers.

“Forces for change” was a thought-provoking headline. In the magazine’s introduction, Meghan wrote about her intention to highlight “the power of the collective” and focus on “positivity, kindness, humour and inclusivity . . . to shine light in a world filled with seemingly daily darkness”. She added: “Through this lens, I hope you will feel the strength of the collective in the diverse selection of women chosen for the cover.” Her language offered no philosophy. Nor did she identify her destination. “Lens” was a recurring metaphor in Meghan’s lexicon.

Within hours of announcing the magazine’s scoop, the phones at Vogue’s office did not stop ringing. The whole world wanted to read Meghan’s special issue. The magazine’s young female readers related to Meghan, a woman with a successful independent career using her platform in the royal family to campaign for change. To stay in the spotlight, the editor blitzed a news story every day. In regular calls Meghan urged Enninful to offer more stories to the hungry media. Finally, she had hit the ground running.

Buckingham Palace was blindsided. Palace staff member Sara Latham, head of communications for Meghan and Prince Harry, was told by Meghan to mastermind her latest publicity launch. Her first task, said Meghan, was to demand that the official publication date in Britain be delayed by one day to let publication in the US take the lead. America’s reaction, she was certain, would be more positive than Britain’s.

Meghan’s order revealed that she was relying on her American advisers and hoped that a Palace request to Enninful would be obeyed. Once Latham’s demand was rejected, the relationship between Meghan and Vogue’s staff deteriorated. Their conflict was about control.

Keleigh Thomas Morgan called to tell Vogue that she, rather than Latham, would be representing Meghan’s interests, and therefore also Vogue’s. Enninful rejected that demand. Facing the kickback, his decision was questioned by Meghan.

Within hours, their dispute was drowned out by a wave of antagonistic comment published in the British media. Diktats poured down on Latham from Buckingham Palace to “end it” as fast as possible. Aggressive and shirty, she called Vogue’s staff with demands to terminate the magazine’s promotion. As each demand was refused, she abruptly ended the call. The blowback in Kensington Palace was instantaneous. Latham was seen weeping.

Under pressure from Buckingham Palace, Latham was fighting a thankless battle. Having published Vogue’s bestselling edition for 105 years, Enninful saw no reason to end the controversy. Nor did Meghan or her Los Angeles publicists and managers. The publicity was the prelude to the next stage of Meghan’s strategy.

© Tom Bower, 2022. Extracted from Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors by Tom Bower, to be published by Blink Publishing, on July 21 at £22

 

[tigerrouge]

Another extract from the same book regarding dealings with Vanity Fair (the times.co.uk)

The inside story of Meghan and the Vanity Fair affair

Tom Bower’s new book examines the rift between the Sussexes and the royals. In the first extract, Meghan tells a magazine about her relationship with Prince Harry — and takes the family into uncharted waters

Tom Bower

Friday July 15 2022, 6.00pm BST, The Times

Jane Sarkin, Vanity Fair’s features editor, pitched to Graydon Carter, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, that Meghan should be offered not only an interview but also a guarantee to feature on the front cover. Carter, famed as a man ahead of the curve, had never heard of Meghan or of Suits. Nevertheless, he was persuaded that Harry’s latest girlfriend was destined to change the royal family. The interview would appear in the September 2017 issue.

When the call came, Meghan was ecstatic. The messenger was Keleigh Thomas Morgan, a partner at Sunshine Sachs, her Los Angeles public relations agency. After the agency’s years of struggle to get Meghan noticed, Vanity Fair’s approach proved that her relationship with Harry was priceless.

For Meghan, the news was electrifying. Thousands of Hollywood wannabes, she knew, had begged Carter for Vanity Fair’s recognition. Getting the cover photo was the ultimate prize. The amazing bonus was the magazine’s offer that Peter Lindbergh, the famous German fashion photographer, would spend a day with Meghan in a London studio.

Living with Harry had already transformed her life. The feature could even prompt Harry to announce their engagement — delayed, according to Harry, until the Queen’s formal approval on her return from Balmoral in the autumn.

Harry had proposed to Meghan in Nottingham Cottage one evening while she cooked roast chicken. She could hardly wait to say “Yes”. Harry gave her a ring that he had commissioned, with two of Diana’s diamonds set in yellow Botswana gold. He was particularly proud of his design. Meghan did not conceal her excitement, even though it would seem she was secretly determined to have it redesigned as soon as possible.

Harry next called her father, Thomas Markle, asking for his approval. “Yes, so long as you don’t raise your hand against her,” replied Markle . In less than five minutes the conversation was over. Markle was sworn to secrecy.

The engagement was unknown to Thomas Morgan as she gave a careful response to Vanity Fair. Of course, Meghan would be delighted but she “doesn’t want a piece about her. It should represent her as a major actor and especially as an activist and philanthropist.” The interview would introduce Meghan to the world. And, Thomas Morgan added, the peg for it should emphasise the 100th episode of Suits. Harry, she revealed, had only agreed to the article because, as Meghan declared, the producers wanted to celebrate Suits’ centenary.

Sam Kashner, a long-standing contributing editor at the magazine, was assigned to the interview. Known for high-profile cover stories about Jennifer Lawrence, Nicole Kidman, Rosamund Pike and Lee Radziwill, the sister of Jacqueline Onassis, Kashner had previously lived in Toronto. “I don’t know who this woman is,” Kashner told his editor before flying to Toronto in late June.

Contrary to Omid Scobie’s assertion that Meghan wanted “to tell the world ‘I’m in love’ ” and did the “interview with Harry’s blessing”, Kashner arrived at Meghan’s home and was told that his interviewee was under strict orders from both Harry and Thomas Morgan. Aware that Diana and Sarah Ferguson had destroyed themselves in interviews, Harry had ordered Meghan to maintain tight-lipped silence about sensitive subjects — Donald Trump, race, their relationship and especially himself. He was not to be mentioned.

At 12.30, Kashner watched Meghan prepare lunch in a tiny kitchen. The local market, she said, sold wonderful quiche, goat’s cheese, vegetables and breads. “I baked a cake,” she added. As she darted in and out, pummelling him with questions about his school, marriage and work, Kashner began to sense a reversal of roles.

Looking around, Kashner noticed that the kitchen walls were covered with photos of herself and the books piled on the coffee table were picture guides and history books of London. “Only the A-Z of London’s streets was missing,” he thought, uncertain whether she had actually read any books about Britain. Even before they sat down to eat, Kashner felt uneasy. Both knew that a lot was riding on the interview, and both understood that the critical issue of Harry had been vetoed. Meghan spoke, he realised, knowing that she had the winning ticket but avoiding giving an impression of triumphalism.

Meghan spoke about “my speech to the UN” and her success as an 11-year-old against Procter & Gamble. As a child Meghan had written to the company’s chairman and Hillary Clinton, then first lady, to complain about a slogan promoting washing-up liquid that said “Women all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans” urging that it should be changed to “People all over America”. Bowing to thousands of protests, P&G eventually changed the line. Kashner thought to himself, “It’s hard to know if she’s genuine. She’s an actress.”

“Every day after school for ten years I was on the set of Married . . . with Children, which was a really funny and perverse place for a little girl in a Catholic school uniform to grow up.” Kashner could not know that Thomas Markle insisted that the studio visit was her Friday treat.

“You’re not the typical journalist,” Meghan said coyly. “I like you, especially your stuttering.” Kashner felt he was being played. It was a cat-and-mouse game, he reasoned, and she was calculating how to take advantage of the cards played. “She won’t hit her goal by being genuine,” he concluded. After lunch, she kicked off her shoes. Tucking her legs on to the seat, Meghan visibly relaxed and, to Kashner, appeared sexy. This was the moment to pry.

“Tell me about Harry,” said Kashner, not expecting an answer. “We’re a couple. We’re in love,” Meghan replied into the recording device. Clearly prepared, she balked when asked, “What does love mean?” Instead, she asked Kashner about his marriage.

Eventually she uttered, “I’m sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time. This is for us. It’s part of what makes it so special, that it’s just ours. But we’re happy. I love a great love story.”

Bullseye. Kashner was quietly elated. Tellingly, she added: “I’ve never defined myself by my relationship.” She was an independent woman who would not be defined by her relationship with Harry.

Over the next few days Kashner called those who Meghan had recommended as her friends. The tennis player Serena Williams denied she was Meghan’s friend but just an acquaintance. She gave him an enigmatic quote: “You’ve got to be who you are, Meghan. You can’t hide.” Kashner’s unease grew. Soon after he had returned to New York, Meghan sent him spices from the market. “Meghan’s snow job,” he decided.

The photoshoot on a London rooftop, Lindbergh reported, was a “delight”, despite Meghan’s refusal to look sexy. A standard white shirt and tulle ballgown, she believed, would win Palace approval. Instead, the milestone endangered a myth.

Sunshine Sachs had demanded that the magazine satisfy Meghan’s requirement that she be presented as a philanthropist and activist, without considering one problem: Vanity Fair’s scrupulous researchers could find no evidence of her global philanthropy and activism. “Hollywood philanthropy is PR philanthropy,” Graydon Carter often observed.

Reading Kashner’s completed interview, Vanity Fair’s editor “knew the article was a huge coup for the magazine”. The familiar and well-rehearsed profile gush about the dilemma of ticking the race box at school, the mixed-race dolls and the Los Angeles riots was good colour, but her revelation was sensational: “We’re a couple. We’re in love” was guaranteed front-page headlines.

Meghan’s interview took the royal family into uncharted waters. As the magazine was printed, Meghan was celebrating her 36th birthday with Harry in Botswana. Meghan had brought with her a copy of Pride, a small-circulation magazine aimed at mixed-race and black Britons. The magazine featured an interview with her. She described her fight against racial prejudice and the importance of female empowerment. As a “woman of colour”, she told the magazine, she felt an “obligation” to speak about being half black. Vanity Fair, she imagined, would blast her same message across the globe.

Pre-publication copies were released to Sunshine Sachs and Buckingham Palace in early September. The front-cover photograph of Meghan was covered by the headline “She’s Just Wild about Harry”. Meghan’s unprecedented brazenness took Buckingham Palace by surprise — and electrified the British media. The interview triggered sensational reactions: Meghan had used her relationship to promote herself. The Hollywood-isation of the royal family had sealed Meghan’s fate as Harry’s fiancée.

Within hours, Meghan called Ken Sunshine and Thomas Morgan. Hysterically, she described Buckingham Palace’s fury at “Wild about Harry”. Sunshine Sachs, said Meghan, should have ensured that her comments about Harry were removed. Why wasn’t the focus on her philanthropy and activism?

Sunshine feared that Meghan would fire his agency. Puzzled why Buckingham Palace was angry, he called the magazine’s editor to deliver what he imagined to be the ultimate threat. “You’re going to have to deal with the Queen,” he said. The furious monarch, he imagined, would pick up the phone and berate the editor. The editor was bemused. Meghan, Sunshine was told, “didn’t get the cover in her own name . . . but because of who she was likely to marry”.

Destabilised, soon after Meghan called Kashner: “I thought this could have been an actual friendship. I don’t now think that can happen.” Kashner, she implied, had “queered the deal” with Harry.

Kashner was puzzled. How could she hate a blatant puff piece? Then her feelings were explained. Of course, she hated the title “Wild about Harry” because she was promoting her philanthropy. She was equally furious that her battle with P&G was omitted. Kashner resisted revealing that Vanity Fair’s fact checkers had raised questions about its accuracy and, after consulting P&G and advertising historians, had concluded they could not prove the whole story. They could also find no evidence, as Meghan claimed, that she received a reply from Clinton. Unknown to Kashner, Thomas Markle knew Clinton and P&G had not replied to Meghan. The success of her “campaign” was fictitious, invented by an adoring father.

“She complained because she wasn’t presented in the way she wanted,” recalled Kashner. “She demanded that the media do what she expects. I felt manipulated.”

Vanity Fair did, however, agree to one “correction”. There was speculation that until mid-July, she was still living with the chef Cory Vitiello. Meghan explained that she had met Harry in July 2016, not May. The magazine published the change.

As the anger subsided, Meghan reconsidered her fate. The producers of Suits were “awestruck” that an actress from their series with a mere 1.5 million viewers had made Vanity Fair’s cover; the only disappointment was that the royal relationship did not improve the ratings. On the positive side, Harry remained utterly loyal.

Reversing the narrative was impossible. Unlike the other young women who married the Windsors it seemed Meghan would not remain silent. In London, Harry’s family and their advisers were subdued. This was not an issue, as some would later assert, about the Palace’s handling or mismanagement of Meghan. Nothing could be done. The besotted prince ignored the warnings that Meghan spelled trouble for the Palace.

© Tom Bower, 2022. Extracted from REVENGE: MEGHAN, HARRY AND THE WAR BETWEEN THE WINDSORS by Tom Bower, to be published by Blink Publishing, on July 21.

 

[vogue28]

Introducing Kenya Hunt as editor of British Elle, discussing the magazine’s new chapter:

 

[Felipe Wiedmer]

I want to ask an honest question because I was too young to pay attention to magazines in their golden age. What has changed regarding the sizes of magazines?
Like, the US Vogue September 2012 issue with Lady Gaga is the largest in its history with 916 pages and now that its considerably smaller, what has been cut out? Less advertising? Were editorials longer back then?
I just saw a national magazine here and it truly shocked me to see that despite having 3-4 productions, all of them being advertorials, it still ended up being just 77 pages.

 

[Rigida]

I want to ask an honest question because I was too young to pay attention to magazines in their golden age. What has changed regarding the sizes of magazines?
Like, the US Vogue September 2012 issue with Lady Gaga is the largest in its history with 916 pages and now that its considerably smaller, what has been cut out? Less advertising? Were editorials longer back then?
I just saw a national magazine here and it truly shocked me to see that despite having 3-4 productions, all of them being advertorials, it still ended up being just 77 pages.

From my observation, yes less advertising.. due to changing times and also because fashion retail in the US is not doing as good as it used to be?

Previously you have tons of US based dept store and brands advertise on US magazine like US Vogue.. I feel that they took quite a huge chunk of advertising ratio. In September issue years ago you have luxury dept store like Barneys, Saks, Bergdorf, Nordstrom, etc each having 20+ pages of advertisement.. almost like a mini catalogue inside the magazine. Now you know most of them are struggling. Nordstrom probably only do 4-6 pages of ads in the recent September issue of US Vogue.. Same like US brands / mid department store like GAP, Macy's, J Crew, etc.. they used to buy a lot of advertising pages as well.. GAP and J Crew could do 10+ pages of advertisement in one issue years ago.. now both of them are struggling and probably all of their advertisement budget goes to digital. Also US based cosmetics brands such as Maybelline, Cover Girl, L'oreal, Revlon etc.. they also used to do a lot of ads as well, now I never see Maybelline, L'oreal or Cover Girl ads in US Vogue..

Then the international brands.. most of them are switching to digital and also some of them are no longer in business. I remember Marni used to do quite a lot of ads in each issue of US Vogue.. now they no longer do print ads I think.. other brands such as Burberry, Versace, etc doesn't do print ad as much as they used to be.. previously you have brands like Roberto Cavalli, Oscar de la Renta, Donna Karan (when they're still in business), Calvin Klein, etc doing regular print ads in magazines. Now I think only Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Valentino, Prada and the likes that still do regular print ads. For US High fashion brand probably only Ralph Lauren and Michael Kors that still do.

There used to be tons of "lifestyle" ads as well, I remember years ago they still do print ads for upcoming TV Shows and Albums.. of course they no longer do that.

When you have a lot of ads of course you have more budget for the content pages. Let's say probably US Vogue Sept issue years ago can do 200 - 250 pages of contents in one issue.. but now they probably only do 100 - 120 pages of contents and that of course affects the total number of pages they have.

I don't work in magazines so that's my observation purely as a reader for 10+ years... maybe someone that work in print industry can give their insight..

 

[Xone]

Vogue Ukraine will release a collectible book of the 9.5 years of the existence of VU..looks promising...

 

[vogue28]

According to The Daily Mail, staff at American Vogue remain upset over pay, contracts and unions and may stage another protest when the September issue is released later this month.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

According to The Daily Mail, staff at American Vogue remain upset over pay, contracts and unions and may stage another protest when the September issue is released later this month.

They didn’t seem to have this problem when they use to hire rich girls as interns. I’m sorry but unions don’t scream VOGUE.

 

[mepps]

They didn’t seem to have this problem when they use to hire rich girls as interns. I’m sorry but unions don’t scream VOGUE.

Go woke, go broke.

 

[vogue28]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here at theFashionSpot joined the Vogue Club for $300 a year?

 

[tigerrouge]

Not quite magazine news, but news affecting the delivery of subscriptions in the UK - Harper's Bazaar sent me a polite email to say:

Due to Royal Mail strikes in the coming weeks, your issue of Harper's Bazaar will arrive a little later than expected this month. The strikes are planned for the following dates:

Friday 26th August
Wednesday 31st August
Thursday 8th September
Friday 9th September

We apologise for this inconvenience, unfortunately these delays caused by the Royal Mail strikes are beyond our control. We kindly request you allow an additional 3-5 days for your issue to arrive.

I see UK Bazaar is due to come out on 1st September, as well as UK Elle, Tatler, World of Interiors.

The next issue of UK Vanity Fair is due out on 16th September, which seems no time at all since the Lewis Hamilton one came out.

 

[blusheels]

Genuinely interested in seeing what everyone thinks about the future of fashion magazines - what's everyone opinion's on making (especially) Vogue appealing and relevant again?

My take on this is that fashion magazines these days have to:
1) democratize fashion while still keeping the high-fashion feel (like Zara, for instance, cheap clothes but great image content).
2) be more present and truly adapt their content on key social media channels. American vogue has been doing a great job on youtube I think.

 

[MagFan]

^ Are you sure top advertisers will be happy to see their overpriced products being surrounded by cheap fashion? Advertisers is what they only care about.

Their youtube chanel vews are not that high, but when they are high that's because of the person feautured, not magazine autority. Nonames have more views on youtube and we are talking about 130 years old "bible of fashion"

 

[blueorchid]

Is L’Officiel still in print?

 

[caioherrero]

The last print issue of Condé Nast’s beauty-focussed publication will be the December 2022 edition, editor-in-chief Jessica Cruel announced in a note this week to staffers.

https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/media/allure-to-shutter-print-edition/

 

[lucy92]

The writing was on the wall when Cruel was hired as her experience was largely digital-only not real publishing.

 

[aracic]

And so one by one they fall lol Can't even bring myself to feel sorry for them, it's what they deserve.

 

[axiomatic]

Pretty soon it will only be the New Yorker and Vogue in print for CN. Until it arrived in the mailbox, I always had trouble remembering that Allure was still in print.