The Business of Magazines

[Pedro]

Not a glossy news but this woman was once the bright editor of Vanity Fair and Talk magazines

Tina Brown: Back in Print, Baby

(NEW YORK) Tina Brown is an editor-in-chief---of a print publication---yet again. "Daily Beast, Newsweek to Wed!" she cheekily proclaims on the homepage of the Beast, officially ending weeks of discussions with Newsweek owner Sidney Harman. IAC, the parent company of The Daily Beast chaired by Barry Diller, and Harman will be joint owners of the new venture, titled The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. “I see Newsweek and the Beast as a marriage between Newsweek's journalistic depth and the vibrant versatility The Daily Beast has realized on the Web,” said Brown in an announcement. “The metabolism of The Daily Beast will help power the resurgence of Newsweek and Newsweek amplifies the range of talent and audience The Daily Beast can reach. The two entities together offer writers, photographers and marketers a powerful dual platform."

Brown will take over as EIC of both Newsweek—formerly helmed by Jon Meacham, who left once Harman completed his purchase of the magazine—and The Daily Beast, which has reached an audience of nearly 5 million monthly unique visitors since its launch in 2008. “In The Daily Beast, Tina and her truly great team have in Internet-time created an hourly, daily news magazine and now will have the ability to revive the weekly venerable Newsweek with all the tools and sensibility they've perfected in the Beast,” said Diller. “I'm so pleased to join with Dr. Harman in our new company. He's such a compelling force and I'm sure he will stimulate this undertaking every day.”

“In an admittedly challenging time, this merger provides the ideal combination of established journalism authority and bright, bristling website savvy,” said Harman. “I like partnering with Barry Diller and I look forward to building our company with Tina Brown and Stephen Colvin." Colvin, currently the president of The Daily Beast, will serve in the position of CEO of The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.
EMILY GYBEN

Source : dailyfrontrow.com, 2010 November 12

 

[missbluejean]

^ I'm not sure of this merger yet though I must admit that I'm excited to see how Tina Brown will revamp Newsweek.

 

[LUXXX]

Every issue of POP under Dasha's control has been incredible...if Ashley Heath was really the brains behind Dasha's operation then it shouldn't be too noticeable a change.

 

[GlamorousBoy]

Croatia: Gruner + Jahr To Publish Cosmopolitan under license in the country from 2011

Gruner + Jahr International will introduce Cosmopolitan magazine under license to the Croatian market from January 2011.

Cosmopolitan is the bestselling young women's publication worldwide, with separate editions in 60 countries, and is published by the Hearst Magazines International media corporation. Gruner + Jahr International has already successfully established the magazine in Spain and several other countries.

Cosmopolitan's publisher in Croatia will be Adria Media, a Joint Venture between Gruner + Jahr and Sanoma Magazines International. It already has a successful presence in the Croatian market with the magazines ELLE, MEN'S HEALTH, GEO and STORY. The license takeover is expected to optimize the portfolio and strengthen its market position significantly.

Dr. Torsten-Jörn Klein, a member of the G+J executive board and President of G+J International, says: "By adding Cosmopolitan, another women's G+magazine of high quality, to our Croatian portfolio, we keep the leading position in this segment and present us as a very attractive partner for advertisers."

source: publicitas.com

 

[Pedro]

Tonchi turmoil

The next editor on the hot seat may be Stefano Tonchi at W Magazine. A reliable publishing source said the top brass at Condé Nast are none too pleased with the direction the magazine is taking since he was hired to replace longtime editorial director Patrick McCarthy earlier this year.

The Kim Kardashian cover -- where she appeared nude with strategically placed black bars -- did not go over well at 4 Times Square, sources said. Shortly after the issue appeared, the creative director, Jody Quon, was gone, with no new replacement named.

Tonchi, who came from the New York Times insert T, has only been on the job since April.

Keith J. Kelly, New York Post, November 17, 2010
nypost.com

Nymag follow up:

Keith Kelly: Condé ‘None Too Pleased’ With Direction Tonchi Is Taking W

A "reliable" publishing source told the Post columnist that the "next editor on the hot seat" might be W's Stefano Tonchi, because they don't like the "direction the magazine is taking." Kelly looks to the departure of creative director Jody Quon as evidence (and a WWD item from that time quoted Tonchi admitting there was "tension" in the office). But a rep for W tells us, "It's the furthest thing from the truth. The company is thrilled with the work — newsstand and web, everything is fine. Our sales are strong. Keith needs to check his sources."

Nymag.com, November 17, 2010

 

[mikel]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[Flashbang]

From Derek Blasberg twitter:

In today's completely unsubstantiated rumors: Aliona Doletskaya, former editor-in-chief of Russian Vogue, is vying for the top gig at POP.

 

[tarsha]

^ That would be AWESOME!

 

[greyeyes]

such great news, thanks, i loved Aliona at VR, it would be interesting to see what's in store for POP.

^and the Tonchi news: i really hope conde nast will replace Stefano , i will pray for it , please bring Patrick back, the last issues of W have been a joke, really, not even a good editorial can save the magazine.

 

[blueorchid]

Seeing Aloina at Pop would be veeery interesting. Truthfully, I don't care who the editor is as long as they steer away from the boring and pretentious modern art focus that it had under Dasha.

 

[Pedro]

I heard that i-D magazine will be decreasing (again) in frequency, to 4 issues/year.

 

[Northern Star]

To be honest I'm not massively surprised by that news. I-D has slowly gone downhill since they dropped issues anyway and although I'm disppointed by the scale back of any magazine, I've been much more disppointed by their lack of decent content and all the hideous covers lately. No doubt they will drop to 4 issues a year, but each one will have 10 crap covers each.

 

[blueorchid]

I feel like I don't mind i-D decreasting in frequency because it's like $15 here. So I'll save more money.

 

[tigerrouge]

If I thought i-D would produce four thick issues with content that's well thought-out, and with decent covers, I would really look forward to that, but as it stands, I haven't bought an issue in ages.

I have fond memories of old issues, and I definitely wouldn't want to see it disappear, but at the moment, it doesn't seem to have risen to the challenge of supplying something outstanding to readers.

It's good for a publication to have a sense of its history, but at the same time, I feel that this is a magazine that's been left behind by the internet. It used to be a great source for finding out about people who weren't being given a voice in other forms of media, but now those people can speak to us directly, they don't need to go through alternative magazines to find an audience.

If i-D could find a way to cover the same scene, while making the most of the reading experience that only a magazine can offer, then I would have a reason to get it.

 

[cottonmouth13]

If I thought i-D would produce four thick issues with content that's well thought-out, and with decent covers, I would really look forward to that, but as it stands, I haven't bought an issue in ages.

I have fond memories of old issues, and I definitely wouldn't want to see it disappear, but at the moment, it doesn't seem to have risen to the challenge of supplying something outstanding to readers.

It's good for a publication to have a sense of its history, but at the same time, I feel that this is a magazine that's been left behind by the internet. It used to be a great source for finding out about people who weren't being given a voice in other forms of media, but now those people can speak to us directly, they don't need to go through alternative magazines to find an audience.

If i-D could find a way to cover the same scene, while making the most of the reading experience that only a magazine can offer, then I would have a reason to get it.

Very well said, tigerrouge! I always look forward to your post.

 

[nyc_art_style]

If I thought i-D would produce four thick issues with content that's well thought-out, and with decent covers, I would really look forward to that,

That's what I'm really hoping for. I think four is the perfect number of issues to produce each year.

 

[GlamorousBoy]

InStyle Men: 2x a year in Germany

The unique concept of InStyle Men, style of the stars, a brand of InStyle, has convinced the male readership. For its first issue, InStyle Men sold 60'000 packed with InStyle, and sold further 20'000 copies separately.

Following these good results, the publishing house, Burda, has decided to print two issues in 2011 in March (Spring/Summer issue) and in September (Fall/Winter issue). Both editions will be again packed with Instyle and a month later will be sold separately on newsstands.

source: publicitas.net

 

[tentalicious]

What Vogue Actually Pays Its Models

It's not much! Filings made in association with a $3.75 million lawsuit include the earnings statement of one of the plaintiffs, the Polish supermodel Anna Jagodzinska. That ledger tallies gigs for American Vogue, Vogue Paris, and an H&M campaign.

Jagodzinska, pictured here in an ad for the jewelry brand David Yurman, is suing her former agency, Next, for allegedly stealing $320,000 of her earnings; her co-plaintiffs are the Estonian Karmen Pedaru, who accuses Next of taking $400,000, and the Pole Anna Cywinska, who says she's out $30,000. These models left Next in April of this year, and are claiming that since then, Next has flatly refused to pay them their money.

There are two main issues in the lawsuit. Each plaintiff is seeking the return of those earnings, plus $1 million in punitive damages. Additionally, the three allege that Next's breach of fiduciary duty was so extensive and so serious that they want the right to open their former agency's books to identify other victims. (Full disclosure: when I modeled, Next was my agency in New York and Los Angeles. After I stopped working, in the summer of 2009, Next paid me my outstanding earnings in full and in what I considered a timely manner.)

To document their claims, Jagodzinska and Pedaru filed at Manhattan Supreme Court copies of the seven-page contracts they signed with Next and assorted other papers. Among them is Jagodzinska's account statement at Next, dated April 23, 2010.

It's pretty interesting:

Click to enlarge

So what does it show? This is not a record of Jagodzinska's full income for the month or for the year — it's just a list of payments that were still pending as of April 23.

Among the jobs Jagodzinska was awaiting payment for were two that dated from May of 2009. You'll see one of those deadbeat clients is Vogue Paris, which had apparently owed Jagodzinska the princely day rate of $125 for just under a year. In addition, American Vogue owed Jagodzinska two payments of $250, one from the previous October and the other from December. Doing a magazine editorial is basically volunteer work; where a model makes her money — if she makes money — is in advertising campaigns (which are rare but extremely lucrative) and catalogs (which are somewhat easier to book and generally offer day rates in the low-to-mid thousands).

To that end, Jagodzinska's biggest pending payments are $60,000 that she's owed by H&M, $35,000 from the creative agency Laird & Partners, which produces ads for a variety of luxury companies (Jagodzinska was in a Bottega Veneta campaign and a Donna Karan campaign around the time of the job, November 2009, both of which were Laird & Partners ads), and a whopping $172,500 from Grey Paris, another production house. Presumably that is for another campaign. She was also in a J. Crew catalog, for which she's owed $15,000.

Among the biggest debits to Jagodzinska's account are $56,675 in agency commission, and federal taxes, which Next calculated at $85,012.50. (Because Jagodzinska is not a U.S. citizen, Next withheld taxes from her pay even though she is legally an independent contractor, not an employee.) Next also charged Jagodzinska $650 for including her in its "show package," or the packet of head shots that agencies mail to casting agents to promote their models just before the start of the runway season. And Next charged Jagodzinska for something marked "IMAGING/WEB-DEC., JAN., FEB.," presumably a cost related to having her portfolio on Next's website, and she was charged for the purchase of magazines. (Agencies buy magazines to rip out editorial photos or "tears" that feature their models.)

Even though things as straightforward as promoting a model to casting agents, keeping her book up to date with tears, and making her pictures available to clients online might seem like basic costs of management, they are billed separately, against what remains of the model's earnings after Next has taken its 20%.

Altogether, miscellaneous costs and taxes reduce Jagodzinska's $233,129.65 to $89,684.50. That's still a nice chunk of change, and in no way typical among models — Jagodzinska's a face of the Gap and Calvin Klein who's been on the cover of American Vogue, remember — but she's still only holding onto a little less than 40% of what she grosses. And even though Jagodzinska is in the black, she can't actually get her $89,684.50 because Next has marked it "Unavailable." Remember, none of the clients have paid yet! If Jagodzinska had wanted that money from Next on April 23, it would have been given only as a loan, for which she'd have paid Next a financing fee up-front of 5% of the total. That's 5% of a sum from which a 20% commission and Next's other costs have already been deducted.

Pedaru, who signed a three-year contract with Next in in February, 2006. Her contract, as is standard at Next, renewed automatically for additional 12-month terms, absent written notice of termination at least 30 days before each renewal date, and therefore was still in effect in April of this year, when Pedaru broke with Next. She filed with the court a 2-page document that she received at the time of her contract signing, specifically outlining Next's accounting procedures.

A lot of it's pretty straightforward — models have to get "vouchers" signed by their clients at the conclusion of each gig, to prove that the job took place to the client's satisfaction, and it says that if a client pays a model in cash she still has to pay Next its 20% commission — while other provisions are a little more exotic.

Click to enlarge

Next may or, at its sole discretion, it may not offer models any payments during the interval between when a job is completed and when a client actually pays Next the money for that job, which is known as an "advance." Among jobs ineligible for advances under any circumstances are runway shows and jobs for any client headquartered outside the U.S. And any other jobs Next decrees. And for "clients or customers who have filed for bankruptcy, [or] have credit deemed questionable by Next." Why should Next book its models to work for companies it has reason to suspect won't ever pay? "At the request of Model, Next will provide a list of companies for which it will not advance monies," the contract notes. That list isn't included in the court filings, but I at one time did own a copy; all I remember is that BCBG Max Azria was on it.

Once an agency advances a model money for a job, that agency has a pretty strong incentive to chase up the client for payment. Otherwise, the agency will be out the whole amount. But what incentive does an agency really have to get a client to pay up if it hasn't advanced the model her money? Not very much. In that case, the agency is only set to lose the 20% commission it would have made had the payment been made. The model bears the brunt of the risk.

Click to enlarge

The contract also authorizes Next to make any deductions from its models' accounts for any reason whatsoever. At best, this removes any incentive to keep down such management costs as may be passed on to models — $650 to send some pictures to some casting directors? $100 for magazines? — at worst, it could provide a cover for fraud or skimming. (Those are some very round numbers.)

Next pledges to make "diligent efforts" to collect payments owed by clients, but the contract also states that if a deadbeat client refuses to pay up, the costs of legal representation and/or debt collection will be payable by the model. And the model will still owe Next a 20% commission on whatever sum is recovered (although with uncharacteristic generosity, the agency will only charge commission on the sum recovered minus the costs of recovery).

Next also includes in its standard contract a provision that it be permitted to keep up to $5,000 of a model's earnings in what it calls a "Reserve Account," just in case Next incurs any expenses on the model's behalf at some time in the future. Pedaru isn't subject to this clause — it's crossed out. But in its standard form, this contract binds a model to a management agency that will first take 20% of everything that she earns, then take a bite out of the rest for miscellaneous expenses that it need not inform the model of beforehand or seek her permission for, a management company that may book her on jobs for clients that have a record of non-payment at her sole risk, and then, if she's still in the black after all that — and a lot of newer models, especially those on the hook for the travel costs booked by the agency, and the rent at the models' apartment the agency owns, and the grocery and phone bill money they have to borrow against their future earnings (at a 5% penalty) which agencies call "pocket money," are most assuredly not in the black after the above calculations — if that model is in the black after all that, the first $5,000 left over is the agency's to hold on to. Just in case. Pedaru was three months shy of her 16th birthday when she signed her contract with Next.

The lessons here? Vogue Paris pays crap, Vogue pays not much better, neither of them pays particularly quickly, and campaigns are worth a mint to everyone lucky enough to work on them. And if you are a 5'10" 15-year-old with 34" hips who would like a job where you'll bear all the market risks associated with your labor, be solely responsible for expenses outlayed by others on your behalf without your consent, and maybe meet nice, successful men like Terry Richardson, modeling might just be the ticket.

[via jezebel.com]

 

[tigerrouge]

You don't have to be a model to be in the position of having to wait months to get paid by big-name media outlets, but at least you don't have to put up with the rest of that, and you're only selling your words and thoughts, rather than your face and body.

 

[Bertrando3]

What Vogue Actually Pays Its Models

[via jezebel.com]

OMG this is terrifying! I didn't know agencies were like this with their TOP models, I can't even imagine what those big agencies do with the newbies, hopefully my agencies are small and don't work like that