Print is dead. soon. For real.
Inside the WSJ. Succession Scandal
The somewhat surprising torpedoing of Kristina O’Neill sets into motion a cavalcade of questions about what’s next for the once-trailblazing fashion magazine, starting with: Is this the beginning of the end?
LAUREN SHERMAN
If there’s a plan to replace
WSJ. magazine editor-in-chief
Kristina O’Neill, who was sacked, to use a very British term, by new
Wall Street Journal editor
Emma Tucker last week, it’s not being shared with staffers, according to a number of people. Instead, Tucker’s missive is to “carry on” as usual.
In some ways, O’Neill’s Thursday morning meeting with Tucker—the first time they had met in person since the
Murdoch-appointed editor arrived at the paper on Feb 1—didn’t come as a complete surprise. It was probably time for a change. Her 10-year run at
WSJ., which she spun into a tasteful ode to
Peter Lindbergh and chunky cashmere, made her a star in the declining world of fashion and magazines, with her name surfacing as a potential successor for
Glenda Bailey at her alma mater
Harper’s Bazaar and as an outside contender for
Graydon Carter’s throne at
Vanity Fair back in 2017.
But the world moves faster than it used to, and the 40-something generation of editors cycle in and out more quickly as tastes morph at warp speed. Tucker, who is British and was most recently stationed at
The Sunday Times of London, certainly has her own idea of what a luxury supplement should look like. In the U.K., style supplements not only run on a skeleton staff of typically underpaid writers and editors (we’re talking £45k-a-year situations unless you’re at the top); they are also allowed to take free trips and gifts, which helps in developing relationships with press and advertisers. Essentially, they cost very little to operate and make a good amount. I was told by someone on the business side that
WSJ. lost about $4 million in 2021, although that could have been a “Covid blip,” as one editorial staffer reminded me. (The magazine returned to profitability in 2022.)
One longtime
WSJ. advertiser and I tried to do some back-of-the envelope math on how much the mag was generating overall, and deduced that they were probably bringing in at least $1.5 million for front-of-book advertising each month, so it’s unlikely they’ll stop producing the print product, even if brand interest has dulled a bit.
It’s also worth noting that Tucker’s husband is
Peter Howarth, a former editor of British
Esquire and a supporting character in the 1990s lad-mag boom in London. He’s been consulting for many years on these types of magazines, including the Luxx Report (what a name) men’s style issue at
The Times as recently as this year. (A previous version of this story conflated
The Times and
The Sunday Times, which is my mistake. Howarth wasn’t working for Tucker at
The Sunday Times, although the publications are owned by the same company and share a website.)
The timing of the change, however, does feel a little weird, given that the magazine has not closed the September issue, the most important driver of revenue for any fashion publication. And there was no funny business involved—unlike a few years ago, when two senior people, one in editorial and one in business, were fired for egregious expenses and accepting freebies. (I’m not going to name them here because they’ve been embarrassed enough!) I’m also told that several top executives on the revenue side were not aware that O’Neill was being dismissed.
As for what Tucker’s next move will be—she
could truly just carry on, minus O’Neill’s salary, by promoting her deputy,
Elisa Lipsky-Karasz, and digital director
Sarah Ball, who lives in London and has access to the top brass on that side of the pond. From my end,
NYT Styles editor
Stella Bugbee is a clear choice, or the
Financial Times’
Jo Ellison, although I doubt either is interested. (They both already have good, challenging, secure jobs.) I got some write-in votes for
Matthew Schneier, currently a reporter for
New York magazine and The Cut who is hugely talented and may be underutilized in his current role.
But I think the answer may lie with Howarth. My guess is that there will be no other staffing changes until the top job is filled.
puck.news