The Business of Magazines

That was just one part of the overall Virgin mega-business.
 
PRWeek speculates on why Red magazine is proving a success:

Why Red magazine is winning the race for readers

26 May 2009

What magazine does the 20- to 40-something female reader pick up when she tires of seemingly endless sex, celebrity and diet stories? According to ABC figures, she picks up Red. The Hachette Filipacci title saw its circulation rise to more than 225,000 at the end of 2008 – a record level.

PR professionals, many of whom subscribe to Red themselves, say the magazine is successful because it treats its rea­ders like intelligent women. ‘It is the only magazine that does not treat me like a celebrity-hungry, weight-obsessed, man-addicted 30-something,’ says Pam Sharpless, director of USP Content. ‘I love the success stories of women starting their own businesses when they have families. It is very inspirational.’

Intelligent female readers
The average Red reader, acc­ording to editor Sam Baker, is ‘educated, around 50 per cent have children, most have a car­eer and those who do not have chosen to stay at home with their children’. The average age is mid-thirties, although readership ranges from mid- twenties to upwards of 40. ‘Red is for women who have grown out of Glamour and Cosmopolitan but are never going to be old enough for Good Housekeeping,’ says Baker.

Readers vary from those who buy fashion and gossip titles such as Vogue and Grazia, to those who buy The Sunday Times. This means content needs to be relevant to both groups. Talent is welcome, but pitches cannot be overly celebrity-saturated.

Celebrities have to be 'women's women'
Red does feature celebrities, but they have to be ‘women’s women’. ‘We have an interview with BBC Radio 1 DJ Jo Whiley coming up, and Birmingham City MD Karren Brady,’ says Baker. Other ‘Red women’ inc­lude Yasmin Le Bon, who Baker says has proved overwhel­mingly popular, Nigella Lawson and Kate Winslet: ‘Readers would rat­her read about inspirational British women.’

As well as talent Red has the usual PR openings of fashion, beauty, lifestyle and family. Abigail Harrison, MD of PR agency thebluedoor, keeps in contact with the magazine’s food editor Deborah Robertson: ‘She is honest in her product feedback and very supportive of smaller products.’

The key to working with Red, according to Mothership PR director Jules Somerset Webb, is to know the readers and know your subject. ‘If you get it right, the journalists at Red will work very hard for you,’ she says. Mothership rec­ently pitched a feature on a client who is a personal trainer and professional athlete. ‘They loved the angle and for this particular client Red was spot on,’ she says. But she warns against going in under-prepared, as the editorial team know their readers inside out and will want all relevant information. ‘Even the photographers know what they want and know Red as well as the journalists.’

Circulation 225, 380 (ABCs, 1 July-31 December 2008)
Frequency Monthly

A minute with... Sam Baker, editor, Red

Why is Red holding up well during the recession?
Red is a little luxury. It is the kind of magazine you curl up on the sofa with. We are becoming a favourite purchase now people are not buying four or five magazines a month.

What is your policy on using skinny models?
We work with older models and models that reflect the reader. There is nothing worse than a 32-year-old opening a magazine and seeing all of the clothes on a 16-year-old beanpole. Models look better in clothes than the rest of us, that is a fact of life, but if the model is 29 and has had a child our readers can relate to her better.

Describe your relationship with PROs
On the whole most PROs are pretty good at their jobs. I will occasionally hear my features director giving someone short shrift. We cannot trot out another ‘Ten things women need to know about love’.

Any PR pet peeves?
I cannot bear it when people ask for our features list for the next three months.

http://www.prweek.com/uk/researchData/908451/Why-Red-magazine-winning-race-readers/
 
A Feb 2009 PRWeek interview with Katie:

Editor's Desk: Katie Grand, LOVE

Describe LOVE's editorial agenda
We try to avoid agendas, and want to create an exciting and compelling new entry into the style sector. It is important not to have rigid sections. We will cover fashion, art, music and style culture.

Who will read it?
Ardent lovers of fashion, style and popular culture the world over. The age range will be broad, and the magazine weighted more toward females.

What makes a great LOVE story?
For the first issue it involved putting an interesting celebrity in interesting fashion, photographed by a great photographer and interviewed by a great writer. It's impossible to compete with newspapers to find 'someone new or interesting' so it is about ideas execution.

Of which story are you most proud?
Terry Richardson's images of Anjelica Huston. Anjelica lived with Terry when he was a child and used to go out with his father, Bob Richardson. The photos are intimate, not retouched. The interview with fashion journalist Jo-Ann Furniss is touching.

Let us into some future plans
We want to keep getting better. While LOVE is a magazine, its reach will be much broader. We want to work on projects that directly involve designers creating products for stores. I want to work outside a magazine's parameters, with the website, blog or retail partners.

What is your PR pet peeve?
My biggest annoyance was at the beginning of February when a lot of PROs weren't at work because of the snow and I had a shoot to do. PROs in general are pretty good. Some become very important when putting a magazine together.

What are your media must-haves?
The Sun, The Times, The Independent, Grazia, The News of The World, W, Interview, British, French, Italian, American and Russian Vogue, British Vanity Fair, I-D, Dazed & Confused, I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, Come Dine With Me and most things on BBC4.

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/882780/Editors-Desk-Katie-Grand-LOVE/
 
I'm actually more excited about the re-launch of POP than I ever was about Love, which ended up being an out-takes and backstage shots book...

The new pop site and blog are very tastefully done, I like...
 
Get The Fashion Spot on your Facebook! Visit our page to check out the latest fashion news and connect with other tFS users.
facebook%20cover.jpg

Follow us on Twitter to keep up with both breaking news and off-beat ephemera from the world of fashion.
 
I don't really know if this is the right place to post it, but here is an interview with Katie Grand in the 09 Spring Summer issue of Self Service. Some of the parts are not quite relevant to her magazines, but I typed it out anyways for the sake of completeness. :flower: Also please kindly disregard any typos I might have made:blush:

Katie Grand - Editor-in-chief, Love

On a "Raison D'etre" from independent publishing and reinventing new ways to push things forward. On the evolution fo the cultural landscape and remaining faithful to original ideals.

A continuous cycle of innovative alternative publishing has produced magazines born out of distinctive countercultures, as reactionary statements to the media establishment. These publications exist in part to champion what had been previously ignored. Throughout the decades, cult magazines spring up, some of which disappear and others that endure. In recent times, the 1980 blast of The Face and i-D gave way to the 90s wave of Purple, Dazed & Confused, Visionaire, and this very magazine. When Katie Grand's new Conde Nast venture, Love, was announced, the trend of the blurring between the independent and more mainstream factions became apparent. Grand is exceptional in that she has managed to straddle these two worlds to bring the avant-garde to the masses and the credibility to the underground. Love was launched in February as a biannual alternative to the stable of more traditional books. Her approach has been to integrate a vibrant, enthusiastic, DIY methodology into an existing infrastructure. Katie Grand became obsessed with fashion magazines in her early teens, and attended Central St.Martins. At this time she began working at Dazed & Confused in its nascent stages. In 1999, she became fashion editor of The Face, leaving a year later to begin her own magazine, Pop. Katie Grand and Ezra Petronio speak editor to editor about the conundrum of independent integration in the establishment, staying faithful to young photographers, different media for different times, the outdated notion of magazines as bibles, the possibility of nothing to fight against, and understanding ways to navigate the system.

Ezra Petronio: What a truly exciting journey that you are experiencing at the moment!

Katie Grand: We have finished [the first issue of Love magazine] which is a great relief. Now I'm just worried about what everyone thinks of it.

Ezra: How has your approach to this new magazine evolved from your past publishing experience, and, more recently, your own Pop?

Katie: It's the same team, including all the advertising people, all the press people. Although it's essentially the same team, I went into trying to make it quite different. The thing that was difficult to get used to was that Conde Nast actually wanted to get involved with how it looks. So it is kind of different and there was definitely influence from [Managing Director of Conde Nast UK] Nicholas Coleridge when it came to putting it together, which I had never had at Pop. The way that the magazine looks is very un-Pop. When I started, I didn't know whether it was going to be the next issue of Pop or something new.

Ezra: How did the aesthetics change exactly?

Katie: I had been thinking a lot about retouching and how boring it was, and how redrawing poeple may not be the way forward. That's what we've done for the last ten ears. I know your aesthetic has always been much more raw. I was obsessed with photographing celebrities and then not retouching them. That's pretty much what we've done with this issue. I have been looking at a lot of mid-90s issues of The Face along with very old Avedon images. I really like the old school idea of retouching, when it was done just to "help" the subject a little rather than completely redraw them. The David Sims cover of Kurt Cobain in The Face is so amazing. It's such an iconic image, one of the most iconic images of my generation. Actually, the most innovative thing that I have seen recently is a picture Terry Richardson took of Anjelica Huston crying, completely un-retouched.

Ezra: How do you see this long-lasting phenomenon of celebrity presence as influencing the fashion world and vice versa?

Katie: Celebrities have a lot of power, and they help sell fashion magazines. Having said that, our best selling cover of Pop was Kate Moss, and I would still class her primarily as a model as well as having celebrity status. I think the celebrity phenomenon is very interesting and I certainly embrace it. I have always been intrigued by helping give a celebrity a different image for a cover. It adds another element.

Ezra: How will this new venture within a traditional corporate structure influence or affect your work methodology? How instinctive and "unpragmatic" can the process be?

Katie: Well, I have actually worked within publishing houses for ten years now. Pop was published by Emap and then Bauer, which is much more corporate than Conde Nast. I like working within a publishing house; it means you don't have to worry about getting the printer fixed -- there is someone else to do it for ou. On Love we have a separate office from Vogue House, so we are still pretty independent; we have to buy our own stamps sometimes!

Ezra: But it is definitely good to evolve.

Katie: It is good to learn something. I have never really worked in a way where anyone told me what to do. So that was different. Even at Dazed & Confused, and all the time at Pop, no one really ever got involved. It was good actually; I kind of appreciated someone else's opinion this time.

Ezra: Did you discuss strategic objective? Did you give yourself new personal goals on how you would want to express your views on a larger scale? Was there any involvement from Conde Nast on that end?

Katie: No. Their input was mostly creative. Nicholas Coleridge came over quite a lot to look at the boards. It was little things, like, "I really think those pictures should be full bleed." I'd go, "Yeah, I kind of agree actually, thanks!"

Ezra: It's a way of getting involved in the process. How do you see the profile of the reader of Love different from the reader of Pop?

Katie: Bigger and broader. We have the support of a big marketing campaign, which is amazing and definitely has a knock-on effect with sales.

Ezra: In your experience, how does one remain true to independent integrity and sensibilities while trying to appeal to a larger audience? do you think that after so many years of creative independence that it can now be even more stimulating and challenging to create with some new and necessary parameters? I personally find that it can actually fuel and stimulate creativity and inspiration.

Katie: I think that when it comes down to it, one has to learn how to compromise a lot, and to be clever about how to do things. And to have a gut instinct about a cover, and not be scared of cover lines! I used to never put cover lines on magazines, and then worked out that when you added a few, you double your circulation! I really enjoy getting a good sales figure and a good ad revenue figure for a magazine; it's really important to me. But then so is having lovely pictures and working with amazingly creative people.

Ezra: What is the intersection between image and text in a great magazine, if any? Should there be a particular style or guiding force that unites the text, imagery, design, fashion, ideas?

Katie: On a biannual, I think it always helps if you have something to loosely hang th issue on. Biannuals are more like mini books than magazines, the time spent on them are so immense.

Ezra: How has your view of fashion and media changed over the course of your career?

Katie: I think I am much more award of commerce than when I started. I have been incredibly lucky and fortunate to have worked with some of my greatest herores both in design and photography. So, in a way, a lot of my ambitions have been realized, although still not all of them!

Ezra: Being integrated within the most prestigious publishing house could be seen as the ultimate success for an editor with independent sensibilites such as yourself. Was that an ideal you were aiming for? For years, our independent magazines have played a role in challenging and influencing the aesthetics and content of the established magazines. Yet, ironically, these past years have seen those boundaries blurred to the extent that very often today, the established is now influencing the independent! Although we contributed to bringing a certain aesthetic into establishment, today, sometimes the opposite is true. Magazines like Vogue are at times way more trendy and react quicker to certain things than independent magazines.

Katie: When I started Pop, it wasn't a million miles from when I worked on Dazed & Confused. I'm sure Self Service is the same, where sometimes the first copy doesn't work and you have to go down the road. And sometimes you have to post your own letters. You are responsible for every single page that goes to repro. Bauer is set up to do huge magazines and we definitely weren't their priority. Pop required the same sort of skill that I'd learned before, but all of a sudden you're in this huge structure. They actually care about what you do. Not in a bad way at all, but there's definitely a structure that can help you.

Ezra: Also, the financial support can be helpful. With certain ambitious editorial ideas.

Katie: We didn't actually have more budget. I think everyone presumed that we'd have those generous budgets, but in fact, for a month I was dealing with agents putting in these massive bills and they're like, "No I'm really sorry, we can't do this!" You know what agents are like.

Ezra: I know. It's funny because when today you look back to the days we started out magazines in the nineties, the cultural landscape has changed so much. Going back ten years ago, although the economic situation in England was different from the one in France, there was definitely this idea of the "struggle" in both places. It was often a situation of "us" versus "them". There was the establishment, the big magazines, and then there were the independent publications. There was something concrete to fight for. In those days, it was often the independent magazines that were able to promote young photographers and developing countercultures.

Katie: When we were doing the first issue of Love, I was conscious of not letting down the photographers who have been really supportive to me during the later issues of Pop, like Alasdair McLellan and Alice Hawkins. Alice did such beautiful pictures. I was really proud of the last issue. Not having those big photographers in the later issues of Pop allowed Alasdair and Alice to do really great pictures. They are both in the first issue of Love. Alasdair shot quite a lot for it.

Ezra: What is the role or even the real purpose of the independent fashion and cultural press within the current cultural context? If you were ten or fifteen years younger today what would you be doing? Would it be a magazine? Would it be a blog? What would you be fighting for? You have defended an aesthetic in the past; you still do. When you started in this business you had a vision, ideals you wanted to defend. What do you think would be the things you would want to do today if you were younger?

Katie: Marley Mackey [son of Steve Mackey, Grand's boyfriend], who is a bit younger when I got really into magazines, has no interest in paper at all. He is like 12, maybe 13. I got really into magazines when I was 13. He looks at my room full of magazines and asks why I have so many bibles. I think, sadly, that his generation is much more into the Internet. He has no interest in picking something up and turning a page. With Love, we had a blog from the very day that the magazine was announced. It's brilliant to have something that is so accessible and immediate. I think it is much easier to be less precious with a blog than with the printed page. You are also able to react much quicker to daily events. Working on a biannual magazine can sometimes be a bit restrictive. It's hard to say what I would be doing if I were younger, though.

Ezra: Do you feel nostalgic about the past?

Katie: Yes I do, but I am always incredibly optimistic about the future.

Ezra: Do you think that there's a tendency to look backwards instead of forwards?

Katie: It depends on the season. Sometimes secondhand things look great, other times you want to see a sketch rather than a vintage sample.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rest:

Ezra: You have a huge vintage collection and I know you bind old magazines. How important would you say it is for someone working in fashion to have a sense of the history behind everything?

Katie: Sometimes I will want to look at my old clothes and be obsessed with looking at a particular era of a particular magazine; sometimes I just don't want to look at anything old. The good thing about fashion and magazines is that they run in such short cycles that you can literally change your mind every few weeks!

Ezra: Are fashion and fashion magazines the best media today to express something progressive? Are there any other creative fields or media that you believe are more relevant than fashion?

Katie: There is a lot to rebel against in the music world. The whole way that people buy music has changed. All of the record companies are unsupportive and are not giving anyone any money. It feels quite right for a change of pace in a way. I was talking to Jefferson Hack the other day about how funny it was that none of us who worked on Dazed & Confused had ever worked for a magazine before. It's funny that none of use knew what we were doing properly. It's amazing that it ever came out.

Ezra: Fashion and luxury goods are bigger industries today and are faced with the same economic and strategic reevaluations as any other industry. Knowing this, how will people reinvent new and interesting ways to push things forward?

Katie: There are people that play it very safe. That's probably going to be the bigger companies. For menswear you saw a bit of that happening already. The bigger companies are going very commercial and then on the other you have everyone saying how amazing Gareth Pugh's menswear show was. That was definitely not a commercial show.

Ezra: That's what I love about Marc Jacobs for example. He is fortunate to be able to do very personal and innovative things with his own brand, and on the other hand fully understands the contextual different and very specific rules and obligations of a major brand such as Vuitton. He will fulfill these obligations in a very creative manner! I think that's maybe the more modern way to do things today, by acknowledging that this industry is a business and finding extremely creative ways to accept it and push things from within. Where do you think fashion is going, and where do you want to take it?

Katie: It's hard to say as we are in such a strange economic climate. However, every time there has been hard periods, incredible talents emerge, from punk through to Damien Hirst, Oasis, and Lee McQueen. I've been working in magazines long enough to have seen the last recession -- which is actually what Dazed & Confused was born from.

Ezra: How do you see the evolution of consumer habits changing with the financial crisis?

Katie: I think I already feel people cutting back. However, when it comes down to something that someone really wants, they will still buy it. Everyone in my office talks about being careful, but are still definitely shopping for that Balenciaga coat that they "can't live without" or those Pierre Hardy shoes that will make their lives "perfect".

Ezra: What do you think of fashion advertising today?

Katie: I think that among photographers, designers, art directors: everyone has gotten very accomplished at advertising. Everyone is very good at showing the product and making sure it looks perfect. I feel that it is a responsibility, particularly for next season, to think about how to make a reader stop and reflect on what they are looking at - rather than going, "That's a great bag," and, "Doesn't that celebrity look nice in that picture!" and "Doesn't that celebrity look dreadful!" Something has to give in advertising. I don't want to say it all blends into one but...

Ezra: In a way it does. I agree with you. How would you define your own style?

Katie: I completely love clothes, from fancy dresses to tour t-shirts. Day to day, I generally walk everywhere, so often my outfit is governed by being able to walk for miles in my shoes. But having said that, I can walk for miles in very, very high shoes.

Ezra: Is there something that you would have liked to have invented in fashion?

Katie: The Westwood tweed crown.

Ezra: Do you think that fashion can still shape a culture's values or does it simply reflect them?

Katie: I think it is a bit of both. Very occasionally you will have fashion dictate how nearly every young person dresses, like Lee McQueen bumster trousers; it's incredible the influence that silhouette had on society.

Ezra: Would you say that there's a fashion code of ethics? In a scene that is known as fairly permissive, is there anything that is taboo on a fashion shoot?

Katie: The only time that I remember experiencing a taboo with a fashion image was on a shoot that I was actually on a while back. We shot a nun story and there was an image of six naked girls on the altar of a church. I sat looking at what was in front of me, and for the first time in my career I though, "People will be too shocked if we run this." So we ended up not running the image. I just did not want to offend people unnecessarily. I am not religious myself, but I appreciate that other people are.

Ezra: Is luxury relevant today?

Katie: I think it's a different type of luxury; I think people are feeling happier to look understated.

Ezra: Do you think big luxury companies are prepared to react to shifts in cultural moods?

Katie: I think that we will see more consideration in the coming sesason. Last season, everyone was reacting to what was literally happening every day in the newspapers. This season, we will probably have slightly more perspective. Although I think visually people just want to see something really jolly, and ultimately, if a collection or a show is good, poeple will like it, regardless of economic times.

Ezra: How would you describe luxury today?

Katie: Time and youth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thank you so much for taking your time, Fini! :flower: :woot:
this was a nice read even though not the strongest Ezra's piece.
 
Changes in Elle Russia

The publishing house Hachette Filipacchi Shkulev reports that in Elle magazine was made important changes. Resigned Irina Mikhailovskaya, editor-in-chief of magazine, and Olga Mikhailovskaya, Director of Fashion Elle Russia. Manage projects Elle directly to Elena Sotnikova - vice-president of the publishing house.
In doing so, Helen continues to manage and coordinate other magazines: Marie Claire, ELLE DÉCOR, ELLE Girl, MAXIM, Psychologies, ELLE DELUXE, Parents.

glossy.ru
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Face set to be revived by Bauer Media after five years
by John Reynolds

LONDON - Bauer Media is set to revive the iconic style magazine brand, The Face, five years after the title was closed down.

Key executives at Bauer Media, including chief executive Paul Keenan and Geoff Campbell, the managing director of its men's unit, have enlisted former FHM editor Anthony Noguera to oversee the proposals, which are likely to result in the brand resurfacing next year in a new format.

According to sources, the publisher is contemplating a number of options for the new brand, including relaunching it as a digital-only proposition, a free magazine or a subscription-only title.

Bauer Media, which owns the brand's trademark after it acquired the magazine's former owner Emap Consumer Media, has ruled out reviving The Face in its previous incarnation of a monthly, paid-for news-stand title.

Sources have revealed that the plans "are very active" and Bauer executives have already sounded out one leading advertising agency over the plans to relaunch the brand.

The Face, which played a key role in defining popular culture in the 1980s, was launched in 1980 and in its pomp posted a circulation of nearly 80,000 copies.

The title closed in 2004 after Emap decided it was no longer financially viable and a buyer could not be found.

Rob Lynam, press account director at Mediaedge:cia, said: "There was a lot of talk at the time about The Face coming back in some form. It will create opportunities in areas where they don't have any at the moment."

Bauer Media declined to comment, other than to say it has no current plans to relaunch The Face.

brandrepublic.com
 
^^hhmmmm very interesting.....thanks for the info:flower:
They would really have to look at a drastic change as the old format could hardly be repeated, but I'm keen to see the outcome of this.:D
 
It's indeed very interesting, but I don't the idea of a free or on line magazine.
 
I just don't see it working, not in this economic climate when we have "solid" magazines like i-D being hit, and others folding, how insane to bring it back now?! :blink: But then again Bauer Media is not exactly known for their common sense.
 
Bauer shifts about 35 million magazines worldwide each week, so it does get the occasional decision right. However, given the company's recent UK lay-offs and a pay freeze, some people may be wondering about their timing. But the creation of any new jobs in the magazine sector is welcome news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A great article worth reading (dont let the lenght scare you:(

Si Newhouse's Dream Factory
Condé Nast’s own stars compare their glossy empire to the MGM of Old Hollywood. But no one would wish it the same fate.


S.I. Newhouse Jr., chairman of Condé Nast, falls in love with his editors. His romance with Joanne Lipman began over lunch at his U.N. Plaza apartment, with its beige carpets—no red wine allowed—and paintings by Warhol, de Kooning, Cézanne. Lipman, 47 years old, who’d spent her entire career at The Wall Street Journal, is a serious journalist with a serious mien, and long legs, which she likes to show off with short-skirted power suits. Lipman is “attractive,” in Newhouse’s vernacular—“He uses the word like others use the word spiritual,” says a former editor. The two brainstormed at a small dining-room table. Newhouse, in his standard worn New Yorker sweatshirt, told her he had an idea for a business magazine. Newhouse didn’t say much more; he rarely does. He asks questions. But Lipman excitedly filled in the details.

Newhouse’s pursuit of Lipman was unusual. In most cases, someone else winnows future editors, presents the possibilities to Newhouse, shapes the conversations. But Newhouse, this time, made a point of doing it himself—Portfolio was very much his thing. And by the end of the day, he’d decided he wanted her to be editor of the magazine he planned to launch, which would be called Condé Nast Portfolio. Newhouse pledged patience and breathtaking resources—said to be more than $100 million over five years.

It was a great romance even if, like many great romances, others shook their heads about it, wondering whether Newhouse’s passion for Lipman was entirely rational. Business magazines were, after all, in decline. And soon, turmoil in Portfolio’s offices, along with incessant leaks to blogs and tabloids, made Lipman seem a caricature of the imperious Condé Nast editor, ruling from on high, out of touch. Even factions within the Newhouse family believed Si was blind to the real situation at Portfolio—“a good idea, badly executed,” was how one person described the magazine.

Finally, Newhouse himself couldn’t ignore the economic realities. Portfolio was on track to lose $15 million in a year; the total cost may have ballooned to as much as $150 million. On April 27, Newhouse summoned Lipman, this time to his eleventh-floor office, with its giant Andreas Gursky photograph of the NASDAQ sign on the outside of the Condé Nast building, to deliver the difficult news. In the past, Newhouse’s breakups had been unsentimental. The past was over—he moved on. His editors sometimes saw it on TV or heard it from others. This one was different. “I love Portfolio,” he told Lipman, with obvious feeling.

“I love it too,” Lipman replied.

A star-crossed romance. “It was painful,” says one person close to him. “It wasn’t just a financial investment. He had great hopes for it.”

Newhouse has never been one to show much emotion. But in the last two years, he has had to close Jane, House & Garden, Men’s Vogue, Golf for Women, Domino, and finally Portfolio. At Condé Nast, the rumor mill, accurate or not, continues to grind. Which will be next? Wired? Architectural Digest? Does the company really need two food magazines? The grim work has taken a toll. His own personal wealth has declined by half, to some $2 billion, but personal wealth was never the point. “Without Condé Nast, he would cease to exist,” says a person close to him. “It’s where he comes alive.”

So when it dies a bit, he does, too. “I’ve never seen him so depressed,” says one person on the publishing side. On his next birthday, he’ll be 82, and Portfolio may have been his last great fling. Who knows whether he’ll get to launch another magazine?

Si Newhouse is nothing like his magazines. Short, physically unimposing, dressed for the office in khakis and beat-up loafers, he’s the opposite of glamorous. “He’s always had the luxury of being himself,” says a friend. He’s notably inarticulate, speaking softly, with long, excruciating pauses between words. A decision to commit millions of dollars might be communicated with a “very, very quiet whispered yes,” says one of his former editors.

It’s a type of decision Newhouse, one of the great media entrepreneurs of the past three decades, has made with breathtaking regularity. In 1979, when magazines like McCall’s, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, and other sensible books were leading women’s titles, Newhouse started Self magazine for a new generation of restless, body-proud female readers and bought GQ for a new style-empowered man. Four years later, he relaunched Vanity Fair, which—after years of huge losses amid editorial floundering—channeled and helped create the arriviste dreamscape that took off in the eighties. Along the way, he purchased The New Yorker, then brashly rebuilt it, grafting its sedate Shawnian DNA to Tina Brown’s topical buzz, creating a fascinating Frankenstein that still is at the core of the magazine’s identity. He also remade Details, a trend-dipping downtown title, and bought Wired, the champion of the technological revolutions that now nip at his empire.




Though Newhouse built Condé Nast with ruthless commercial motives—when someone asked him about the purpose of his company, his answer was, simply, “To make money”—there are clearly other motives at work. “He loves magazines, meaning the whole and all of it, the variety of things published, the business details, the visions and actions and personalities of his editors, the problems, the problem-solving, the ink and paper … the all of it,” David Remnick said to me.

If Remnick’s remark sounds a bit like a eulogy, it’s because it very well might be. Condé Nast, like all magazine companies, is struggling. The luxury market on which Condé Nast depends is anemic, with no cure in sight. And the Internet, workaday and diffuse and all-too-democratic to an elitist like Newhouse, competes for the dollars that remain. Almost all of his magazines have been hammered by the downturn (as have most magazines, including this one). Wired ’s ad pages are down almost 60 percent in the first three months of this year versus last; The New Yorker’s are down 36, Vogue and Vanity Fair both around 30 percent. Newhouse has long been a modernist, with forward-looking instincts, his timing not too far ahead and never behind, but suddenly he seems to have become a kind of magazine sentimentalist, in love with a world that more and more exists in the past.

One of the stories Si Newhouse tells about his father, Samuel I. Newhouse, known as Sam, is how he came to purchase the Condé Nast company. Just before his 35th wedding anniversary, Sam, a tiny bulldog of a man, departed for work before dawn, as always, and returned later that day with a present for his wife: Vogue magazine, the jewel of Condé Nast’s five titles. “My father bought the company as a gift for my mother,” Newhouse likes to say. It’s told as an affectionate story about a distant, work-obsessed father—“My complaint about time spent on the job is that there is not enough of it,” Sam once wrote—and the even tinier wife he doted on. But it’s also revealing about father and son.

Sam was a newspaperman—Si didn’t see much of him until he was old enough to visit the Staten Island Advance, Sam’s first paper. By Sam’s death, at age 84, he’d amassed a newspaper empire that stretched from Newark, New Jersey, up to Portland, Oregon, larger, by some measures, than that of William Randolph Hearst’s.

Both of Sam’s sons were college dropouts who worked in the business from the age of 21. Sam tapped Donald, his younger son, to run the newspapers. Si was installed at Condé Nast—he finally became chairman in 1975. “Those who knew him well seem to think he trusted the judgment of his younger son, Donald, more than Si,” writes Thomas Maier in his excellent biography Newhouse.

It was clear what Newhouse’s father thought of magazines; they were baubles, suitable for socially ambitious middle-aged ladies. Si, though, would ultimately prove his father wrong about the value of the magazines and about his talents.

Newhouse’s magazine mentor was Alexander Liberman, who’d shined as art director at Vogue in the forties and became editorial director in 1962. A Russian-born, European-raised artist—he had minor renown as a sculptor and painter—Liberman had a gift for wooing the powerful. According to his stepdaughter, ambition was his animalistic outlet. He loved the court politics that developed at Condé Nast, and his Machiavellian tactics were both a way of doing business and a kind of aesthetic value, part of the company’s frisson.

Liberman and Newhouse eventually became an inseparable king and privy counselor, constantly conferring sotto voce. Liberman introduced the awkward heir to art and to artists and instructed him on the nuances of social calibration, like “who was famous and who was important,” different categories entirely, as a former publisher explains.

Liberman was also an original voice who talked in mystical terms about magazine-making, and his sensibility became the sensibility of the whole company. “He was a genius,” says Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue. Liberman prized magazines’ power to transcend the quotidian—“Dear friend, where’s the glamour?” he once woefully asked Harry Evans, the first editor of Condé Nast Traveler.

The two came to share a philosophy, which was, at its simplest, “Magazines are precious things,” as Liberman sometimes told editors. They require pampering and purity and, not incidentally, money. Liberman tore up layouts at the last minute and counseled editors to spend, spend, spend, because spending, too, was part of the aesthetic, almost an end in itself.

Newhouse’s father died in 1979, a year that coincided with a burst of creative and commercial energy that would reshape the magazine landscape. After Self took off, Newhouse relaunched Vanity Fair, a Condé Nast flagship that had failed during the Great Depression, with a bold but vague idea of a popularized, glossier version of The New Yorker. The magazine consumed huge amounts of cash, $75 million in its first few years. With its somber black-and-white covers by Irving Penn (a Liberman discovery) and sometimes effete content, it struggled to find a voice. Within a year, Newhouse had dismissed two editors before hiring Tina Brown, the first of his crushes and the first of Condé Nast’s famous editors. Brown “kick-started” the current incarnation of Condé Nast, says James Truman, Condé Nast’s former editorial director.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
part two

Con....

Brown concurs. “I brought in the news gene,” she says. “Newhouse came to understand that news was a key to connection to the culture.” But of course, what news mostly meant was buzz. Brown had an instinct, and an unrestrained affection, for power, and she set about glamorizing it, whether in politics, Hollywood, business, or crime. The notion that a magazine could borrow celebrity power to increase its own, such a truism now, was revelatory at the time.

Newhouse’s timing was exceptional. The thrusters under the boom economy were charging, and with them, a new type of reader appeared. Newhouse’s magazines appealed to what would be called aspirational readers.

As Newhouse rebuilt Condé Nast, his organizational inclinations became clear. He ran it as if it were a movie studio of the thirties and forties, the era in which Newhouse, a shy child, fell in love with the glamour of Hollywood. “One editor is like Hal Wallis,” Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair, tells me, “another like Busby Berkeley, and there’s a commissary,” the Frank Gehry–designed cafeteria at the Condé Nast Building at 4 Times Square. For Newhouse, it was a wonderful setup. “He created [in Condé Nast] a reality in which he is no longer the bumbling, asocial kid he grew up as,” says one person close to him. In this analogy, Newhouse is in the role of Louis B. Mayer, the notoriously tyrannical MGM head who loved his stars but made them quake. “Si loves being surrounded by divas and egomaniacs,” says one former editor. When one editor called another a “****ing b*tch,” Newhouse didn’t mind. “Yes, but she’s our b*tch,” he said. He delights in the Darwinian drama that takes place below him. “He believes the best will rise and will not be shivved in the back,” says the former editor.

For Newhouse, studio life offers a further reward. Because of his own psychology, Newhouse can’t really express himself, so he’s created an environment in which all his nerve endings have projections in the world, in people, in departments. “All the major figures in Si’s professional life, the people who interest him, represent some aspect of him,” says a person close to him. “So while Anna or Graydon or David live off him, it’s also true that to some degree he lives vicariously through them. They’re all adjuncts or outbursts of Si, all acting out parts of Si.”

One afternoon, I ask Carter if he is worried about the future of magazines. We are in his office on the 22nd floor of the Condé Nast building. Carter has lately put on a few pounds, and his curved desk of blond wood seems cinched around him like a seat belt. “You try opening a restaurant and not gaining weight,” he says—weeks before, he’d opened the Monkey Bar, and before that the Waverly Inn, and one of his two assistants, visible through a connected sliding-glass window, takes reservations.

“If you’re competing as a daily or a newsweekly, you may have problems with the Internet,” says Carter. “For the monthly magazines, the clouds part a little and the sun comes out. If you tell stories and have great pictures, there’s a great future for you. I do think this company is pretty well suited for the future.” Carter’s view is the official view at Condé Nast, where the future is supposed to look a lot like the past. From the outside, however, Condé Nast can appear to be running scared. The impression flows not merely from the string of magazine closings, or the 5 percent payroll cuts, or the halt in pension contributions (part of what I’m told is a shrewd 20 percent reduction of expenses). In fact, it’s the petty trimming that seems telling, all those small profligacies—multiple receptionists, unlimited travel. Car service was practically part of the Condé Nast brand.

But when I suggest that all the closings might look like panic, Carter rises to the company’s defense. “Si doesn’t do panic,” he says, with exasperation. He insists that Newhouse has seen cycles come and go, heard the end of the publishing world foretold more than once. “It’s still a golden age of magazines,” he insists.

I arrive fifteen minutes early to Anna Wintour’s office, but an assistant still meets me in the downstairs lobby. “That’s what we do,” she says, a lovely swirl of blonde hair on her head and two cell phones in her hands. On four-inch heels, she leads me to Wintour’s communication director, who walks me down a long hall—a runway—to Wintour’s office, which is filled with vases of pastel-colored roses. The attentiveness is flattering, though I’m aware, having worked for Wintour a decade ago, that it’s part of her system of control. I mention to Wintour the forthcoming documentary about her, The September Issue, by R. J. Cutler, which follows the production of the largest issue in Vogue history, the September 2007 one—840 pages, 727 of which were ads. I’ve heard that Wintour didn’t feel the movie had enough glamour and tried to change it, without success. “It’s R. J.’s movie,” she tells me tersely.




Wintour’s portrayal of herself is flawless: the rail-thin arms, the now-blondish bob, and the all-business bearing—she still looks remarkably like Louise Brooks, whose image has hung in Newhouse’s apartment. Wintour tells me that at Vogue, conversations have evolved with the times—for instance, she now looks at the price tags of clothes before putting them in the magazine. “How many handbags, how many shoes, does a woman need?” she asks. It’s a nod to the times, not insincere but not hugely significant either. Vogue can’t not be Vogue; that’s crazy. “We stand for a certain world,” she says. “Women want to have pretty clothes. I mean, it’s a question of self-respect too.” Vogue is at heart an unchangeable and, in that, an optimistic venture. Wintour tells me about Ralph Lauren’s new collection of watches, which inspires her. They cost more, but they will last. “He wants to be part of the culture, and I feel the same way about Vogue: I want Vogue to be there, part of the culture,” she says.

If Newhouse’s stars are projections of his inward personality, then Wintour represents the glamour that he first fell in love with through the movies as well as his sharp controlling hand. And Carter is gregarious, voluble Newhouse, the boon companion in a fascinating town, Newhouse’s entrée to a Hollywood he still adores. Carter’s conversation is sprinkled with recollections of convivial dinners with old movie stars, Michael York or Warren Beatty, Bob Evans, and the Vanity Fair Oscar party. Carter delights in his own stories, reels me in with a naughty off-color intimacy. He talks about famous “stickmen.” At 59, he has an infant (Carter’s a stickman himself). And he still smokes. “I quit. I go back,” he says.

I meet David Remnick, 50, at The New Yorker conference “The Next 100 Days,” an important event at New York University. Remnick is wrapping up an onstage interview with Seymour Hersh, his investigative reporter, who is talking about as-yet-unrevealed machinations in Pakistan. “Okay, don’t say any more,” Remnick says, as Hersh starts to ramble. Remnick is Newhouse’s inner egghead, influential, earnest, and ostentatiously articulate, with an accent that flows freely from Princeton plummy to Yiddish—“Is everybody hokking you?” he asks me at one point—and back again.
“We stand for a certain world,” says Anna Wintour.
As we walk to a nearby diner in the West Village, Remnick checks in with his wife, greeting her in Russian—he won a Pulitzer for his book on the fall of the Soviet empire. Remnick is charming but wary, a working journalist who prefers the role of interviewer to interviewed. He reviews for me the differences between off-the-record and background conversations, and then we order salads. (“That’s pretty gay,” says Carter, patently not a salad eater, when I mention my meeting with Remnick.) Remnick salts his conversation with references, and they are all over the place, proudly high and low—J. D. Salinger, Mel Stottlemyre, Perry White, Heraclitus. Much like in his magazine, there’s showy, apparently effortless cultural fluency, though part of the message seems to be: Can you keep up?

Remnick’s view of the future of magazines is shaded darker than either of his colleagues’. The New Yorker’s profitability has slipped into the mists of Condé Nast’s notoriously murky corporate accounting. “Look, the economic climate is awful. There’s no reason anything in this world stays the same. Only a fool, and I don’t think there are any fools involved in this story, would assume that the picture, right at this moment, is going to stay the same.”

Each of Newhouse’s star editors feels intimately connected with a man not given to intimacies, though fascinatingly, each sees him in significantly different ways. Newhouse, says one former editor, is “semi-blank.” In a sense, he’s like a polished surface, and the editors tend to see themselves in him. To hear Carter tell it, Newhouse is a fellow bon vivant. “We’ve double-dated,” he tells me. And he notes that Newhouse can hold his liquor—“One thing you should know about Si: He’s incapable of getting drunk.” And by the by, he knows an outstanding steak recipe from old Chasen’s, now available off the menu at the Waverly Inn. Wintour warns me, “Si is in control, and if you write anything different, you would be 100 percent wrong,” control being a quality she admires. For Remnick, Newhouse is wide-ranging and intellectually curious; he too is a student of Russian history. During the elections, Remnick and Newhouse talked endlessly about Obama and politics, though Remnick never learned if Newhouse is a Republican or a Democrat.

What they do agree on is that none has ever had a better patron. Newhouse isn’t just a boss; he’s the person who stands between them and a crueler, more pragmatic world. Newhouse believes in talent and the mysteries of creativity. He doesn’t meddle. And they revere him for it. “The magazine is yours, Si has always let me know,” Remnick says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cont

“There’s no place on Earth like this,” Carter tells me. “There’s no place where you’re given the resources you need to do what you want to do and also given complete freedom to do it.” A short time ago, Carter says, he offered Newhouse some possible economies. “I tried to bring up money with him,” he explains. “I had some ways of cutting expenses around photo shoots. He just didn’t want to hear it. He got all uncomfortable. Si said, ‘Just make sure there’s nothing that can hurt the magazine.’ In my lunches with Si, you wouldn’t know that there’s anything different from 2002, 1996, 1992.”

Newhouse’s publishers represent an altogether different part of his personality—a darker, hungrier, more aggressive side. Newhouse sometimes refers to his publishers as killers. For years, Steve Florio, brash, crass, and, he said, blue collar, was the lead killer, “the Godfather, the Samurai, the leader, the warrior,” as he wrote in a book proposal. He was also a liar. In 1998, a Fortune article documented a roster of casual biographical embellishments, which taken together made him unemployable elsewhere. Newhouse defended him: “He tells just enough of the truth.” Many at Condé Nast were appalled by Florio’s “brilliant ridiculousness,” as one put it. But Newhouse has a kind of Spidey sense. “He so embodies the business and he’s so involved in it, it’s like an organism that is part of him,” says James Truman. “As a result, he has had a precognitive notion of what’s going to unfold and what the company needs.”

In 1994, after Florio’s disastrous run as publisher of The New Yorker, Newhouse promoted him to CEO, a shocking choice that proved visionary. At the time, Florio made a bold prediction to a meeting of Condé Nast’s publishers. “This company has always been about the editors,” he told the group. “Now you’re all going to be superstars.” And he was right. Florio’s publishers became stars with as much claim to “Page Six” as the editors. Ron Galotti, who was publisher of several Condé Nast magazines, dated models and later Candace Bushnell, who turned him into Mr. Big in Sex and the City. Richard Beckman, a former British footballer and a Florio protégé, became, if not famous, notorious. One tipsy evening in 1999, Beckman, then publisher of Vogue, smashed the heads of two young female Vogue staffers together, suggesting he wanted them to kiss. One of the girls, says a friend “looked like she’d been in a car wreck.”

At another company, the incident would surely have ended Beckman’s career. Newhouse, though, loved the kingdom’s rambunctious egos, especially if they produced, and Mad Dog, as Beckman was known, performed well. Newhouse stood behind him, paying a reported seven-figure settlement to the girl, and eventually promoted Beckman to head of corporate sales.

Newhouse could afford the settlement. Condé Nast rode the boom like few other magazine companies, and its business side sparkled. “For the next ten years, the company was about sell, sell, sell,” says one insider. Florio pushed Condé Nast into the top rank in number of ad pages sold, while constantly bringing home stories of shoving rates down clients’ throats. Newhouse knew the stories weren’t entirely true but loved them anyway. For years, Newhouse raised ad rates about 5 percent annually whether or not a magazine’s circulation increased. Last summer, the company raised rates by another 5 percent. “We’re a company that wants to be admired, not liked,” explains one publisher.

As harsh a manager as Newhouse could be, the upside for publishers was much greater. “You were selling ads for some ****-*** magazine, and now you’re the richest person in your community,” explains one former publisher. “If Si likes you, you will have a life you never imagined you could have.” Newhouse turned a publisher into an expense-account millionaire, flying first class and staying in the best hotels. The company provides key employees no-interest or low-interest mortgages. Publishers can receive a clothing allowance; two club memberships, one in town and one out of town; and a $1,500-a-month leased car. It wasn’t entirely wasteful. Newhouse wanted clients to understand that the Condé Nast brand was as elite as theirs.

In his own life, Newhouse doesn’t need perks. He’s appeared on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans for 28 years, since its inception. In the Newhouse family, wealth doesn’t translate into worthiness. To Si’s father, one proved oneself through work.

Several years ago, Florio had walked into his office around five in the morning, the time Newhouse usually arrived.

“I know why I do what I do,” he told Newhouse, referring to the long days. “I have two kids to put through college.”



“Why do you do what you do?” pursued Florio.

“Ghosts,” he said. “You wouldn’t understand.”

When in 2003 Florio faltered after heart trouble, Newhouse called him at home, where he was convalescing over the holidays. Sales were off, and Florio wasn’t on top of the operation.

“You think it was a surprise to Steve Florio that he was fired?” says Galotti, whom Newhouse fired twice. “Absolutely not … Anybody who works for him knows that when his day is up, Newhouse will just do it. You know that one day, your *** is going to get it just like anybody else’s.”

Newhouse could fire with brutal swiftness and seeming indifference. “Si doesn’t do reverie or procrastination. He’s not romantic. He’s pragmatic,” says one person close to him. Publishers in particular are utilitarian, interchangeable as cards in a deck. “Si’s not cruel,” says a former executive. “It’s as if, after he’s made up his mind, he moves on. In Si’s mind, the person is already gone. Firing is an afterthought.” Following his demotion, Florio got a new title and office, but was no longer a player. He died in 2007 of heart problems.

Most executives get sent off with a fat check, which eases the pain. Still, many of the exiled are at a loss, having missed a central fact of Condé Nast: The lifestyle is on loan. “A kept luxury lady” is what Tina Brown told me she felt like.

The irony of this moment in publishing history, when the future seems so uncertain, is that Newhouse’s company has always looked years ahead, to the next big thing. Historically, Condé Nast’s profits have not often exceeded 5 percent of revenue, the reason being that the company was constantly sinking money into new magazines. The domestic magazines have under $2 billion in revenue. “The company could have earned another $50 million in profit a year,” says one source familiar with the financials. “But Si’s belief was the company constantly needed to be growing.”

Newhouse greenlit a magazine a year for the last dozen years, including Lucky in 2000 and Domino, another $100 million project, in 2005. Portfolio was a more ambitious project, a Vanity Fair for business and an essential market expansion for a company dependent on fashion advertisers. “It was a great idea for a magazine,” says Carter, before pointing out that Condé Nast already has a Vanity Fair for business … Vanity Fair. The magazine was an enormous gut-level bet, made with a kind of CEO’s heroic boldness, and from the day it was announced, it had a certain sprawling, uncontrollable Heaven’s Gate quality.
“It’s still a golden age of magazines,” says Graydon Carter.
Even as some questioned the reasonableness of Newhouse’s passion for Portfolio, in other ways the company was growing more orderly, less spendthrift, more like other companies. In 2004, he replaced Florio with Chuck Townsend, making him CEO and president. Townsend, 65, is the un-Florio, a toned, workout guy and past commodore of the New York Yacht Club—his office is decorated with photos of sailboats. “He looks like a CEO,” says Carter, who’d tired of the killers. “He’s clubbable.” Townsend is an operations guy, not an instinctive boat rocker, which is the knock on him. One former executive who worked closely with him says, “Most people care about making an impact. I’ve never seen Chuck push if a Newhouse doesn’t want to do something.” He went to work on the org chart, streamlining an unwieldy corporate structure. “Every year since I joined, the company got more and more fiscally responsible and focused,” says one former executive.

Now, instead of Mad Dog, publishers like the unflappably personable David Carey represent the culture. Carey, a suburbanite and enthusiastic corporate citizen, presided over The New Yorker as it climbed into the black in 2002, and he is widely praised as “a strategic thinker”—a pointed, if implied, critique of the Florio cult of personality. Newhouse tapped him for the company’s most prominent task, to publish Portfolio. “I like jobs that are hard and complex,” says Carey, who rarely speaks an out-of-line word.

Truman was another mid-decade departure. He’d relaunched Details (where I worked for him) in 1990 and became, at 35, the second editorial director in Condé Nast’s history. With impeccable taste and quirky pop-cultural enthusiasms, all packaged in “profoundly expensive” suits, as he once quipped, he was a slightly foppish Si-whisperer in the Liberman tradition.

Over ten years, Truman seemed to grow restless, even with his successes—Lucky, which was his idea, was more catalogue than magazine. “I told Si a couple of times about how bored I was with managing, and he said, ‘That’s the price you pay for being at the top of the company. I struggle with that, too.’ ”
 
con;

Truman was determined that Condé Nast launch an art magazine, and the two men tussled over the idea for months, though clearly more personal issues were at stake. “Look, you should trust me. I know what’s going on,” he told Newhouse. “That’s why you hired me. You should let me do it.” Finally, there’d been a shouting match in Newhouse’s office, an unusual blowup that surprised them both with its intensity. An art magazine had no advertising base, Newhouse pointed out. “He was right,” says Truman.

Tom Wallace, Truman’s replacement, didn’t envision his role as a guiding creative force; that era was over. He worried about the web. “He’s the protector of high-level quality,” I’m told vaguely, though few editors seem to count on him, except for occasional help in interpreting one of Newhouse’s inscrutable shrugs. “Tom is not electricity. He is steady rhythm seeking perfection,” says Harry Evans, Wallace’s former boss. To some, the new régime seems a collection of organization men, fin de l’empire types marking the decline of an enterprise once bristling with unbound and misbehaving creative energy. One former editor says, “Si has surrounded himself with people who look and sound like executives.”

As the economy has fallen apart over the past eighteen months, first gradually then all at once, Condé Nast’s biggest problem has been the newspaper empire that Sam created. Last year, the Newhouses’ Newark Star-Ledger, one of their biggest papers, may have lost as much as $40 million. No one in the family believes the newspaper business is coming back. The family’s cable business, Bright House Networks, with enterprises in several states, still tosses off tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars, keeping the Advance, which houses all of the family’s businesses, afloat, and the company is virtually debt-free; the family has always hated to borrow. But resources are now spread thinner. The company no longer has the luxury of pumping cash into a struggling title. “The family needed to save money,” Townsend explained to one executive after one magazine closed. Without profit, there’s no “distributable cash” for the family. So far this year, Condé Nast is in the red, though the closings and cuts should drive money to the bottom line. The belief around the building is that next year, if the economy recovers, Condé Nast will again turn profitable.

While the strategy by which Condé Nast will move into the future does not entirely ignore the Internet, it does not exactly embrace it either. When a subordinate worries in a meeting whether the Internet will limit the amount of profit magazines throw off, Townsend may take the person aside, according to one former executive. “Don’t be so negative,” he’ll say. “You’re upsetting the old man.

Magazines in general and Condé Nast in particular are certainly not as threatened in the short term as are newspapers. But Newhouse has been slow to get his mind around any significant brand extensions into the new medium. For nearly a decade, Newhouse opposed purchasing Wired.com. Three years ago, Donald Newhouse’s son Steve finally pulled off the deal, and the website now has sixteen times more unique visitors than the magazine has in circulation. Still other towering brands like Vogue have lain largely fallow.

As a rule, Newhouse has kept his editors away from the web. He has also rarely pushed publishers in that direction, seeing the Internet as a vehicle for selling magazine subscriptions and not much else. And the revenues are comparably minor. He can’t get excited about them—“a painting to Si,” says one cynical former executive. Only about 3 percent of Condé Nast ad revenues came from digital last year, according to Advertising Age, among the lowest in its class.

Steve Newhouse, 52, Si’s nephew, is responsible for many of the companywide web initiatives, and though he hasn’t found a partner in his uncle, some of his ventures have been prescient. He helped create Epicurious.com and Style.com, both conceived as new brands for a world that would no longer be magazine-centric. The point has been less to make a profit than to position the company for a future in which Si Newhouse is gone and the Internet is central. “Maybe an 80-year-old man isn’t the best person to figure out what the next generation of readers wants,” says one former editor.

To a surprising degree, there’s a clannish, insular, old-fashioned quality to Condé Nast and its sister businesses. Newhouse and his brother, Donald, convene regular family meetings—a kind of tribal council—just as their father did. As befits their small-town roots, they distrust the outside world. They still have never hired an outside executive to manage the vast businesses. Says one person close to the family, “Business integration is a family affair.” The meetings are attended by perhaps twenty family members. There are reports from various business heads, like Bob Miron, 71, a folksy-seeming cousin who runs the profitable cable operation from Syracuse with his son and a daughter. The family works hard for unity; at meetings, family members voice opinions but respectfully. Nothing is voted on. “At the end of day, Si and Donald lead the decisions,” says an executive who’s attended meetings. By all accounts, the brothers are incredibly close. “If you’ve talked to one, you’ve talked to the other,” says a person who talks to both.




Ostensibly, everyone respects the process of governance. But there are clear generational differences. The younger generation is not so young—its members are in their fifties. “Are 50-year-olds pulling on the bits? How could they not be? Here’s Si, 81 years old, sitting in the middle of business,” says an adviser. Some of the frustration surfaced over Florio, whom the younger generation viewed as an embarrassment, Si’s folly, a sign of the old man’s misplaced loyalty or stupidity.

Si Newhouse is still the plenipotentiary, plunging into the details. But his age has been something of an issue. He can be forgetful. Sometimes the famous early riser dozes off in afternoon meetings, and he is slowly going deaf. No one doubts, however, that he’s firmly in control. “Newhouse is involved with whatever he wants to be,” I’m told.

No one expects him to retire anytime soon. Still, preparations are quietly being made for a time when Newhouse is no longer on the scene. The succession seems to have been largely settled, even if details need to be worked out. The kingdom will be gerrymandered among the sons and cousins along the lines of Townsend’s org chart. Bloodlines matter. Primogeniture is the rule. In business decisions, Steven and Michael, Donald’s sons, and Sam, Si’s son, “are first among equals,” as one person who’s dealt with the family on financial matters says. Bob Miron and his children will run the cable business. Jonathan, 57, the worldly London-based cousin with a British passport and a pocket square, will no doubt head the magazines. Jonathan already runs the international magazines, which number about a 100 and produce as much in revenue as the domestic magazines. More than the others Jonathan has shaken free of the family. “Brilliant to stake his turf, to get out of the middle of this family,” says a person who knows him. Jonathan enjoys his stature as an international media mogul. About Si, Jonathan told the Times, “I value his experience and wisdom. Still, we have our own business realities here.”
“Only a fool, and I don’t think there are any fools involved in this story, would assume that the picture is going to stay the same,” says David Remnick.
Steven is the other prominent next-generation Newhouse. He’s short, antsy, and more closely resembles Si, his uncle, with the family’s overwide smile. He lives in the West Village and is married to Gina Sanders, the publisher of Lucky. Steven’s role is more circumscribed than Jonathan’s, since he operates within Si’s realm and, at times, at his pleasure. Other executives say he can bridle at these limits. Steven, as if to compensate, has become a kind of protégé to Townsend, who, it’s pointed out, doesn’t resist the Internet. Steve will certainly be in charge of the company’s Internet efforts going forward.

The next generation waits patiently, but there is a clear sense of relief that Si’s domain is increasingly well defined—the emperor has become a division chief. The editors report to Si; the publishers report to Townsend, a significant shift. The days when one all-powerful person is in control are over. “Chuck Townsend runs the company,” says one executive, a fact that clearly pleases the next generation. There also is a tendency, however slight, to patronize the old man. “We’ve talked about this,” Townsend has been heard saying to Newhouse. “He doesn’t get in the way,” is a phrase people have used to praise him.

Some of the once-ironclad faith in Newhouse’s judgment has been eroded by Portfolio. The family was enthusiastic about the idea, but Si’s persistence in the original course was confounding. For the family, it was a delicate matter. “They didn’t want to usurp his prerogative,” says an insider. But ultimately they didn’t leave him much choice.

At this year’s American Society of Magazine Editor awards at Lincoln Center, the Pulitzers of magazine journalism, waiters in formal dress served canapés. And then the magazine Establishment filed into the auditorium, where Jimmy Fallon presented the first award, momentarily giving the event an Oscars-like feel.

Newhouse shuttered Portfolio the week before, but his surviving magazines dominated the awards, winning seven. Newhouse sat next to David Remnick, as he does every year, and cheered and cheered, more animated than anyone has ever described him to me. At one point, he jumped from his seat to clap award-winner Chris Anderson, of Wired, on the back. From the stage, editors issued warm shout-outs to Newhouse, who, though sitting in the audience, was the evening’s dominant figure. Remnick, who collected three awards, praised him as the Babe Ruth of magazines, swinging for the fences.

Later in the program, there was a special lifetime-achievement award for Annie Leibovitz, the photographer whose 25-year career at Condé Nast Newhouse has lavishly financed. Years ago, she signed a lifetime contract that pays her more than tens of millions of dollars, according to one insider.

Three of Newhouse’s editors, past and present, took the stage to praise Leibovitz, the diva of divas, the kind of exotic, cantankerous talent that could only exist in Si’s world. Annie shows up at photo shoots with two vans of assistants and equipment, commandeering the scene. During her baroque financial troubles, Newhouse rushed to her aid, making a personal loan said to be seven figures.
Onstage, Tina Brown, Anna Wintour, and Graydon Carter lined up, three of the four editors who praise Annie—Jann Wenner is the fourth. The stage was bare, like in a Beckett play, commanding presences waiting awkwardly on spots visibly marked in blue tape—the Oscarish aspirations broke down long ago.

Brown was in a modest dark dress, the assertive and unapologetic popularizer, rhyming jolt with volt to give a feel for the impact of Annie’s photos, and then, not quite done, comparing Annie’s photos to crack cocaine. Wintour in knee-high fur-fringed boots, hunched a bit forward at the shoulder. Almost shyly, she read from a prepared speech and talked about the glamour and the difficulties of working with Annie. Carter, in his blazer and his trailing white hair—like George Washington’s wig—asked, “After Avedon, who is there?”

Up onstage it was the golden age of magazines, when one powerful man set legions in motion. And yet, I couldn’t help but notice, the stars were all of a certain age, pushing or past 60. Crack, Avedon: Even the references are from a past era. And yet for a night, the past and Newhouse are in their glory. His dark mood lifted.

That night, Backpacker magazine matched The New Yorker’s three awards.

“I better get an outdoor editor,” Remnick whispered to Newhouse.

“Yes, escape seems to be the thing,” Newhouse replied.

nymag.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,460
Messages
15,185,788
Members
86,330
Latest member
stillkay
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->