The Business of Magazines

[tigerrouge]

I had no idea this was on... a new BBC show looking at Tatler magazine. First episode was on at 9pm, 24 Nov 2014 (bbc.co.uk

Posh People: Inside Tatler

Tatler is the oldest magazine in the world and has been reporting on the lives of Britain's most privileged and powerful for 300 years. Tatler not only documents but also dictates the social calendar of Britain's elite. With an archive full of society's movers and shakers, being pictured in its pages has long been a rite of passage for Britain's ruling classes.

We meet the editor, Kate Reardon, a self-confessed 'honking, great Sloane', and her features team, who are all expected to be well-versed in the rules of upper-class life. We follow the newest addition to the Tatler team, writer Mathew Bell, over his first few months at the magazine as he tries to find his feet and go from middle-class outsider to privileged insider.

We see the team put together an issue, and follow them on shoots and key social events to meet the people featured in their pages, such as Lord Glasgow in his 13th-century castle in Scotland or Nigerian millionaire Kola Karim, who has no idea how many cars he owns.

 

[ellastica]

^ this sounds amazing! so jealous. hopefully this makes a youtube appearance!

 

[Benn98]

Glossies Gone Global: Hearst’s Kim St. Clair Bodden On Newsstand Success From Serbia To Spain

By Alexandra Ilyashov | November 24, 2014

Ever wonder how your favorite glossies get greenlit for dozens of international editions—and who makes sure the titles fly off newsstands in farflung locales? Meet Hearst Magazines International’s Kim St. Clair Bodden, who is currently senior vice president and editorial director at the publishing powerhouse. So, yes, she has a whole lot to do with Cosmo’s 61 editions globally, for starters, as well as the company’s 300-plus international iterations of its hit titles. She’s been avec Hearst for over three decades (just imagine those frequent-flier miles!) and has had many an exotic business adventure in the process. Take it away, Kim!

You’ve been at Hearst for 33 years! How did get your start?
In college, I was a French literature major, so I signed up for a course in Paris with a friend. I got off the plane with a couple of hundred dollars in my pocket—and there was no course. We saw a woman on the street reading a book and could tell she was American. She said to us, “Oh darlings, what’s the matter?” We explained what had happened, and she invited us to stay. I stayed a few months and worked on my French. I had a good eye and I loved photography—I saw an ad in the paper to work at Cosmo International as a glorified mailroom [staffer]. Magazine editions would arrive from other countries and I’d translate the French edition into English so that my boss could understand the articles were. A few years later, I met and was embraced by Helen Gurley Brown, who pretty much taught me everything about editing. I learned quickly and here I am, 33 years later!

What does your gig entail, exactly?
A lot of people ask me that! My job is to be a mentor and guide and advance the success of our magazines internationally. I have an editorial director title, but I’m really the chief brand steward and manager of the international titles Hearst publishes. I interface with, and help build, all of our editorial and publishing teams around the world and help them understand the brand.

How have things changed since you joined Hearst?
When I started, there were 10 editions of Cosmo published in countries with long histories in publishing, like the U.K. and throughout Europe and South America. We’ve since launched magazines in places that don’t have long histories in the industry, like Mongolia or Vietnam, and we have wonderful partners around the world in countries like that. It’s really about understanding that this is a nuanced business; you have to think globally. You can’t just go in there like gangbusters, guns blazing and saying, “This is how you do it.” You have to be sensitive.

What types of launches have stood out during your Hearst career?
Launching Cosmo in Russia in 1994 has always been a highlight. It was a time when the magazine atmosphere and language in the media there was very medicinal and hard, and probably focused towards men. It was a newspaper kind of language. Cosmo really had this great opportunity to empower and help women around the world with a new language—a language called ‘Cosmopolitan’. That, to me, changed the world. It really kind of gives me chair de poule, or goose bumps.

Any recent launches of note?
We just launched Harper’s Bazaar in Serbia. You think of fashion and you think of London, Paris, Milan, New York, China…but Serbia is a wonderful, bubbling, enthusiastic country that’s just as interested, aware, knowledgeable, and intuitive about fashion.

How much do you travel for the gig?
A lot! I have a lot of frequent flyer cards and miles. When I started out, I’d go to many countries in a short amount of time. I had a young child at the time and traveling was part of my job, so I wanted to make sure that I could get the best bang out of a trip. I just got back from Spain two weeks ago, I was in France two weeks before that, and was in Argentina recently as well. So, yeah, I travel a lot! I’ve never lost the excitement for my job. Some people say, “ Business travel is boring. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.” Life is what you make it, right? If you don’t like it, don’t do it.

Where do you always tack on an extra day or two when you’re traveling for work?
Buenos Aires! Argentina is one of my favorite countries in the world. The first time I stepped off the plane, I said, “I could live here.” A few years later, I met the love of my life, who’s from Argentina. My extended family is in Buenos Aires, so now I have personal, professional, and emotional reasons to go there! And Paris is definitely in my heart. Also, there’s no place on earth like Italy.

Do you amass souvenirs from your work travels?
I am a shopper, first and foremost, and I wear a lot of jewelry. All of my jewelry has meaning—the pieces come from all sorts of special places. Jewelry is very transportable: I can hide it so when I come home I don’t think, “Oh my God, I just bought that new coat!” I once was in Bali for the weekend for a business meeting, and I came home with five rooms of furniture. It was delivered to my home months later—with a big, hairy spider in one of the boxes as a nice memento.

Eek! Have you gotten close with the editors at myriad international editions of Hearst mags?
Yes, it really is an extended family. I can show up in the greater part of the world with a handbag and tears in my eyes and say, “I’ve lost my wallet,” and somebody there knows me and loves me and will take care of me. You can’t find that easily!

Are there any editions in Hearst that are really different from the U.S. edition?
The Spanish edition of Esquire has a very different face. Esquire in the U.S. has cover lines, a dynamic design, and features someone who everyone knows and wants to gobble up—it’s a very huge commercial success. In Spain, you might simply have this close-up shot Willem Dafoe on the cover, who may not be in a film right now. The essence of Esquire is there and it’s still as witty and full of wisdom, but they’re applying the Esquire DNA in a different way.

How many languages do you speak?
I can certainly ask for the bathroom in about 20 languages! I speak French, Spanish, and Italian; I can read Portuguese pretty well; I can understand German by reading it but I cannot speak it.

Have you been involved at all in Carine Roitfeld’s global portfolios in Harper’s Bazaar?
She and I work very closely on figuring out what would resonate globally, because that’s really hard. When you’re producing a fashion story that’s going to be embraced globally, that’s difficult. We communicate all the time before her shoots happen about which nuances should be thought about, but Carine has to have creative license, too.

That global Katy Perry cover of Cosmo was pretty major.
We’re producing global covers all the time! More and more publicists and celebrities and models want to have this simultaneous coverage globally. The Katy Perry cover was a huge success. I’m very happy to do more of those.

Which glossies have the least international editions right now?
Country Living and Woman’s Day, which each have two editions currently. We have a couple of launches for different titles in the pipeline for next year. I can’t tell you about them yet, but they’re all very good…

How many launches do you like to hit in a given year?
Five is a nice, doable number, but anything goes! If someone told me we’d do 20 launches next year, I’d be very happy. If we did just two launches, I’d be happy with that, too.

Is that a certain title at Hearst that there is a real effort to expand?
I think that Esquire and Bazaar are on fire—there’s lots of interest from around the world. The luxury market is vibrant.

Source: Fashionweekdaily.com

 

[Benn98]

Net-A-Porter’s glossy mag is raising hackles at Vogue

Gideon Spanier

Published: 12 February 2014

Updated: 11:04, 12 February 2014[/I]

The glossy world of fashion magazines hasn’t seen a war like this for years. Porter, a new print title published by online retailer Net-A-Porter, is going head to head with Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar and other established names.

This isn’t just another customer magazine like those produced by Harrods or John Lewis. Porter, unveiled last week in a transatlantic launch, is a consumer title. It is priced high at £5 (Vogue is £3.99 and Harper’s £4.20) and is being sold in 20,000 shops and on Net-A-Porter, although its best customers will be sent it free.

Editor Lucy Yeomans says it is aimed at “sophisticated women of the world” and the editorial pages feature “all brands, whether they’re stocked on Net-A-Porter or not”. Gisele Bundchen is on the cover of the first issue, and there are articles on actress Uma Thurman and financier Amanda Staveley.

Porter is a single, global edition, with no regional content — unlike Vogue or Harper’s with multiple editions. An estimated 400,000 copies will be circulated six times a year in 60 countries. Advertising rates are said to be higher than those of British Vogue.

No wonder Nicholas Coleridge, president of Vogue publisher Condé Nast International, damns Porter with faint praise, describing it as “pretty” and “safe”. He adds: “It feels like a delightful contract magazine.”

Condé Nast is taking Porter seriously. Vogue has launched an ad campaign which, provocatively, includes the giant 36-metre-wide, illuminated digital poster site at Holland Park roundabout. The reason? It stands outside Net-A-Porter’s offices in Westfield.

Yeomans maintains Porter isn’t a direct rival to Vogue or Hearst’s Harper’s Bazaar, which she edited previously, but she talks about them in the same breath: “We hope Porter will take its place alongside those sisters.”

There is scant evidence of sisterly behaviour. Yeomans and her publisher, Tess Macleod-Smith, also ex-Harper’s, infuriated Condé Nast and Hearst by poaching staff for their 50-strong team. A rival claims Porter offered pay rises of up to £30,000 to woo mid-level executives. But one Vogue staffer who quit for Net-A-Porter returned to her old employer this week.

It may seem counter-intuitive for Net-A-Porter, which already produces a weekly digital magazine, to move into print — especially as most consumer mags have seen circulation fall in recent years. But Yeomans says: “It’s trusted and readers have an emotional connection. They love print.” There is a tablet edition too.

Porter isn’t über-fashionable. It focuses more on clothes that can be bought now, rather than a catwalk collection that might not be in the shops for months. An app with image recognition means readers can point a smartphone at every page to buy the product and get it delivered.

“It’s this moment when commerce and content are coming together,” says Yeomans, who talks about “shoppability” and “putting ‘the service’ into publishing”.

Net-A-Porter’s tech team and its shopper data helped with the planning in a way that was lacking at Hearst, says Macleod-Smith. “It’s easier for us [as a retailer] to become publishers than the other way round,” she adds. That said, Porter’s launch was planned for last autumn, but got delayed.

Advertisers such as Chanel and Dior have backed Porter’s first issue with 72 pages of ads (against 262 in Vogue’s latest issue). Lindsay Pattison, UK chief executive of media agency Maxus, praises Porter as “great-looking” and says: “In no way is this a contract magazine. It is far more sophisticated.” But she has a “caveat” about whether advertisers will buy globally, because 95% of media is bought on a country basis.

Net-A-Porter founder Natalie Massenet thinks global, after selling the site to Richemont. Revenues rose 18% to £435 million last year but Net-A-Porter lost £23 million as it expanded in foreign markets such as China.

She worked on Condé Nast’s Tatler with Yeomans before founding Net-A-Porter in 2000, and there is a sense she is fulfilling a dream with Porter. It is written in “American English”, fuelling fanciful rumours that Massenet could be interested in editing US Vogue.

It will be hard to measure Porter’s success as it will not submit ABC circulation data, although Macleod-Smith hopes to do so in future. Sceptics also doubt it can have the authority of a Vogue, Harper’s or Grazia, which are seen as neutral and inspire trust. Yeomans insists Porter has “editorial integrity”.

For now, the focus is on sales. Branded, one-metre-tall Porter display stands have been positioned at the “point of sale” even in small shops in far-flung areas of London such as Kensal Rise. It will not have escaped Porter’s attention that Kensal Rise is home to several top Condé Nast executives.

Source: London Eveneing Standard.co.uk

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Ha! What a fun read, thanks for posting. I do have to say the comment made by Coleridge would be a nice burn if it wasn't so juvenile. I appreciate a good solid insult!

 

[ThatGuyPaul]

^ this sounds amazing! so jealous. hopefully this makes a youtube appearance!

http://youtu.be/OMOVFvcNfvE Here's a HQ link to the show!

 

[GIVENCHYlover]

^^^ Nice article, very interesting!

 

[Benn98]

^ Ha! What a fun read, thanks for posting. I do have to say the comment made by Coleridge would be a nice burn if it wasn't so juvenile. I appreciate a good solid insult!

It was rather half-a**ed of him, wasnt it? Hahahaha. They say the likes of Vogue and Harper's take a more 'neutral' stance with their fashion authority. As if! Not when coverstars are forever outfitted in the top advettiser's outfits. Nobody on this forum believes that anyway, the general public perhaps. I do however wonder how big Net & Porter's budget is for these magazines. Personally I would phase out the The Edit as much as I love their material. It just seems like an unnecessary cost to book photographers and models on a weekly basis.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

For fashion magazines, the all-important September issue was hurt by Source Interlink Distribution shuttering. The company was one of the nation’s largest magazine wholesalers. As WWD reports, the major players — Cosmo, InStyle, Glamour, Vogue and more — all saw declines in single copy sales.

Cosmo — which sold the most September issues at 698,500 — experienced a drop of 35 percent compared to that same point last year. InStyle was down 26 percent, Glamour 49 percent, and Vogue’s sales were down 28 percent.

These weren’t the worst performers, however. That honor (?) belonged to Details and W. They sold only 35,277 copies and 31,963 copies, respectively, of their September issues.

Source FishbowlNYC

 

[Benn98]

Media People: Glamour Editor in Chief Cindi Leive
from WWD issue 11/07/2014
By Alexandra Steigrad

Cindi Leive is Glamour magazine’s editor in chief, a role she has held since 2001. Under Leive, Glamour runs its Women of the Year awards, one of Condé Nast’s marquee events that celebrates female leaders in a variety of fields, including entertainment, the arts, education, politics, media, philanthropy, science and business. On Monday, Glamour will honor Lupita Nyong’o, Chelsea Clinton, Laverne Cox, Robin Roberts, Natalia Vodianova, Sarah Burton, Samantha Power, Mindy Kaling and Dr. Sylvia Earle. WWD caught up with Leive to talk about the awards, her views on the changing landscape of women’s magazines and why “Homeland” is an ironically uplifting show for working moms.

WWD: Glamour fetes its 24th annual WOTY awards. Please talk about why and how you selected this year’s honorees.

Cindi Leive: Lupita Nyong’o is our cover girl. To me, you could not have done anybody else this year. It was so her year. In the eyes of the world, she kind of came out of nowhere. In her very first major acting role, she completely nailed this performance and then also, as luck has it, she’s this exceptional woman of gravitas. She can speak really eloquently about issues of beauty and identity. She kind of has it all. She’s a fashion plate and a real Glamour girl, and a real woman of substance. We were kind of like, slam dunk, it’s got to be her.

WWD: What about Chelsea Clinton? Why did you pick her and why now?

C.L.: The interesting thing about Chelsea is that she, by all accounts, totally came into her own now that she’s working at the Clinton Foundation. She’s a self-described data geek who is working incredibly hard. She’s getting kudos from some of the top public health experts in the world for the work she’s doing, like actually saving kids’ lives in Africa. That’s pretty impressive because not everybody with a big last name like hers actually works that hard. She really does. She puts in the time. She’s the real deal. I love that.

WWD: How does one become a WOTY award winner?

C.L.: We look for this year’s big stories. You want to honor people this year that you couldn’t have last year or the year before.

I also like to honor women who are using their platforms to make the world a better place for women or expand everybody’s ideas about what women can and should do. We look for women who are a little badass, too.

It is also important to honor people you’ve never heard of before. Sylvia Earl is certainly not an unknown if you’re a fan of oceanography — but here is this woman who is the world’s pre-eminent expert on our oceans. She is still on or in the water three months out of the year at age 79 and they call her “her deepness,” my favorite phrase ever. She’s going to be incredible on stage.

WWD: What makes a good magazine?

C.L.: I think what makes a good magazine reading experience is that feeling of discovery of being introduced to somebody and kind of falling in love with somebody you never even would have known had you not picked up the magazine in that particular moment in time.

WWD: Who is the Glamour reader? Who is she, how old is she?

C.L.: You can’t totally generalize about an audience of 12 million, and that’s in print alone, and then we’ve got digital and all that stuff. But she’s in her 20s, 30s early 40s, who absolutely works. It’s a big part of her identity. We know that about half of our readers are married, half are single, many have children but they don’t really want to read about their kids when they pick up Glamour. This is their moment for them. It’s their escape. They actually get annoyed if we talk too much about parenting.

WWD: The women’s magazine space is crowded, and you speak to a broad audience. How do you pick covers and stories to appeal to your reader base, but still stand out as unique?

C.L.: Obviously there are going to be differences about how a 20-year-old looks at the world versus a 40-year-old, but there are also increasingly things that they share. The generation of young women right now who are in their teens and early 20s, they actually grew up being really close with their moms in a way that women who are currently in their 40s were not necessarily. Many women in their 20s talk to their moms on the phone every day. For that reason, and a lot of reasons, they are interested in reading about women who are not their exact age who have advice to give them, and wisdom to offer. They want to learn. That idea of, “I don’t want to have anything to do with someone who is 15 years older than me,” is really dated.

If you’re 20 or you’re 45, you still think Beyoncé has got it together. I don’t think there’s a divide there.

WWD: Who would you never put on your cover?

C.L.: We don’t really do train wrecks. When a woman buys Glamour, yes, she’s getting great fashion ideas and beauty inspiration, but she’s also reading about her own life, her friends’ lives, her work life, her career issues. The woman on the cover has to be someone she respects. She has to feel like — ‘yeah, that girl’s got it going on.’

WWD: Would you ever put a guy on the cover?

C.L.: Very rarely. I believe there was a Fred Astaire cover back in the Forties. And we did do a Matthew McConaughey seven or eight years ago. I won’t say never — because well, I won’t — but it certainly isn’t something we do often.

WWD: The importance of women’s magazines hit a high in the Sixties and Seventies. How do you view their role today?

C.L.: Young women in general, up to their 40s, are much more willing to call themselves feminist than 10 or 20 years ago. I think we’re seeing that this year. There’s a reason why Emma Watson’s speech at the U.N. went viral. She struck a chord. The negative connotations that might have stuck to a word like ‘feminism’ five or 10 years ago, young women aren’t really aware of those. This is about the basic idea that men and women should have equal rights. Well, duh, end of story. It seems very much like common sense to them.

WWD: Let’s switch gears to the business of media. How do you view native advertising?

C.L.: Native advertising is like any other kind of advertising: some of it’s good, some of it’s not. When we run it, the guideline is first of all, does the reader know what she’s looking at? Is she looking at something that’s sponsored? Is it clear? If it is, is it interesting?

Native advertising will work when the content is interesting. Ultimately, the goal should be in creating great native advertising, create an environment that exists in the best print magazines where women are buying them to read the edit and to also look at the ads that they love.

WWD: Do you have a separate group under the publishing team that works on native ads, or does edit work on them?

C.L.: The deals are sold by our ad team and then worked on in partnership with our own team.

WWD: Glamour.com has a strong presence on the Web. What’s your digital philosophy?

C.L.: I think we took it seriously relatively early on and we also made a lot of mistakes before we started getting things right. I believe in involving our digital team in every aspect of everything that we do at Glamour, so that they are not working in some different wing. When I walk outside of my office, the digital team is right there. They are part of everything that we do from the beginning. I don’t think they ever feel less than or second fiddle to the print team, and I hope that emboldens them to come up with big ideas and to propose things that can get them noticed.

WWD: Is the magazine’s redesign finished?

C.L.: Any editor will tell you, it’s never done. When you’re done, you get bored. The reader can feel that. The major creative changes that we made at the magazine last year, that Paul Ritter made in the design and the photography, and that Jill Davidson made in shaping her fashion department and upping the ante on the styling and the fashion fingerprint of the magazine, that work is pretty much what you see in the magazine now.

WWD: Does Anna Wintour still work on the magazine?

C.L.: Yes, thank God. Yeah, I mean, she’s an incredible resource to have. Her brain is a beautiful and stupendous thing. She knows fashion, she knows photography. She’s infinitely helpful.

WWD: Is she working on stories in the magazine or just fashion shoots and covers?

C.L.: You would have to ask her, but I think she would say she’s there for anything we want to take advantage of her expertise. She’s just a great resource overall.

WWD: Have you noticed a change in culture at Condé Nast since the executive team has been reorganized over the summer?

C.L.: I think it’s probably a little soon to know what the full ripple effect of those changes are, but I think the bottom line is that Condé Nast feels to me like it’s in a forward-leaning phase right now. There’s enthusiasm for digital, as you know there’s big enthusiasm for video. I think there’s an understanding that Condé Nast is a real true media company that produces spectacular print magazines, but also truly amazing stuff across all platforms. That’s not lip service. I think everybody up and down the company believes that and feels it. One of the things that Condé Nast properties do really well is storytelling. I don’t see that changing at all. There’s real enthusiasm for that and real respect for that.

WWD: What’s your end game after Glamour?

C.L.: Oh God, I don’t know. Does anyone ever have a good answer to that question? When I know, I’ll know. When I know, you’ll know.

WWD: Don’t you want to be a TV star?

C.L.: A TV star? No thank you. I get too impatient in the makeup chair. I think the amazing thing about being a magazine editor today is that the business has changed in lightning speed over the last three years. You can’t have your eyes open and be bored. There’s too much change — it’s too exciting. It still feels like a lot of fun to me.

WWD: Aren’t you a little bit nervous? There seems to be layoffs every week in the media industry.

C.L.: I think if you weren’t a little bit nervous, you’d be lying to yourself. Our industry has gone through huge changes, and our industry is going to continue to go through many, many more. That is the nature of media right now. If you’d told any of us that people check their phones 150 times a day, you’d think: ‘what sci-fi movie am I in?’ If you’re smart and awake you should be a little nervous, but you should also be coming up with great, creative ideas and throw yourself into it.

WWD: OK, you don’t want to be on TV, but what do you watch for fun?

C.L.: I’m addicted to all the predictable addictive TV shows. I’ve cycled through “True Detective,” “The Americans,” “Orange Is the New Black,” and I’m kind of cooling a little bit on, well never mind.

WWD: “Homeland?”

C.L.: Yes. “Homeland.” I do still watch “Homeland.” If Carrie Mathison could just have all the screen time...

WWD: She really hates her baby, though, I must say.

C.L.: I’m just waiting for that baby to grow up and have a spin-off. That baby needs a spin-off: “Abandoned Spy Child,” and I will be addicted to that show, too.

As a working mother, I think it is helpful to have Carrie Mathison around because you know what? No matter how bad a mom you are, you’re always doing just a little bit better than she is.

Source: WWD.com

 

[Benn98]

Know that cover is old news, but an interesting read regardless.

Vogue Beats Out Other Suitors With Kim Kardashian Cover
By Alexandra Steigrad
March 27, 2014

KARDASHIAN FASHION KOUP: The fashion world and blogosphere may have been surprised when Vogue put Kim Kardashian and Kanye West on its April cover, but WWD has learned that both Vanity Fair and Harper’s Bazaar were considering a Kim Kardashian cover, too. According to sources with knowledge of the situation, Kardashian had been in serious talks since the fall with Bazaar, which had slated the reality star for its February cover.

Asked for comment whether it was considering Kardashian for the magazine’s cover, Bazaar executive editor, special projects Laura Brown said simply, “Kim and Kanye are the greatest example of conscious coupling. We wish them all the best.”

A spokeswoman for Vanity Fair said the magazine does not comment on speculation about its cover choices.

The pitch made by Bazaar’s editor in chief Glenda Bailey included a beauty shot of Kardashian for the cover and a spread, all shot by Terry Richardson. A source said Bailey had pushed for a close-up versus a long shot because the then-pregnant Kardashian looked “overweight.” That didn’t sit well with Kardashian — nor did the choice of photographer. Although Richardson is a friend of the Kardashian clan, a source told WWD that there were “concerns” over the photographer’s well-publicized unsavory behavior. She also wanted to work with a new photographer — Richardson shot the Kardashian Kollection Sears campaign last fall.

Another reason why Kardashian in the end nixed Bazaar is because “Glenda doesn’t go to the shoots,” a source said, explaining that at Vogue, Kardashian would be able to work with Grace Coddington, whom she admires.

A Vogue spokeswoman said putting Kardashian and West on the cover was editor in chief Anna Wintour’s idea.

Once Wintour warmed to the idea, Kardashian dropped Bazaar and Bailey was left to scramble for a February cover. The fashion title used Canadian model Daria Werbowy, a surprise considering its usual run of celebrity covers, which have recently included Sarah Jessica Parker, Lady Gaga, Kate Hudson, Madonna and Miley Cyrus.

With Bazaar out of the picture, another KK suitor materialized: Vanity Fair. Like Vogue, Vanity Fair would use Annie Leibovitz for the shoot, so that wasn’t an issue. But, according to an insider, the real holdup came from within VF’s editorial team, which was split over whether it should put Kardashian on the cover.

In a meeting that lasted an hour, editor in chief Graydon Carter and top staffers debated the merits of putting Kardashian — with her entire family or with just West — on the cover of one of its summer issues. At one point, Carter asked the staff to raise their hands if they thought it was a good idea.

“It was mixed,” an insider noted, adding that the staff had been “spooked” from the backlash it received when Paris Hilton was on the cover of the magazine’s Spanish edition in 2011.

The debate ended when news began to trickle out in early 2014 that Kardashian had already been shot for Vogue’s April cover. And the rest, as they say, is reality.

Source: WWD.com

 

[Benn98]

How Much Editorial Love Do Fashion Magazines Give Their Advertisers?

http://racked.com/archives/2014/09/10/magazines-editorial-advertisers-vogue-elle-glamour.php

 

[saucer-like]

These weren’t the worst performers, however. That honor (?) belonged to Details and W. They sold only 35,277 copies and 31,963 copies, respectively, of their September issues.

Seems like with every news item I've read lately about worst sellers, one of "fashion icon" Rihanna's covers is amongst them. Will the myth that she "sells" finally die?

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Surely it has to! She is being overused on covers, and magazine buying public is showing how tired they are of her. Swift had the same problem few years ago, was worst seller on all the covers, but she took a bit of a break, and i bet she doing better now.

That number for W is truly low, especially for Sept, wow!

Here is the article in full from WWD;

SEPTEMBER COVER STARS AND SLIPS: A picture can say a thousand words, and when it comes to a cover, it may say even more.

While the newsstand may be ailing, when it comes to September, fashion, beauty and luxury-centric magazines are still aware of its importance. According to newly released newsstand sales numbers by the Alliance for Audited Media, Cosmopolitan won the September issue battle with 698,500 total single-copy sales for its cover featuring Lucy Hale. InStyle came in second with sales of 503,400 copies for its Julia Roberts cover, followed by Vogue, which featured models Joan Smalls, Cara Delevingne and Karlie Kloss on its cover, which sold 359,703 copies.

While Cosmo won the battle, it isn’t exactly winning the war. In September, the title logged total single-copy sales of 1.1 million. That means that in the 12 months to September 2014, sales have declined 35.1 percent at the newsstand.

Although Cosmo editor in chief Joanna Coles has referred to the newsstand in previous interviews as “dying,” she told WWD on Monday that the bankruptcy of wholesale distributor Source Home Entertainment over the summer played a role in the decline.

“No doubt the bankruptcy has played into it,” she said, adding that “new fixturing” at Wal-Mart Stores In. has also impacted retail sales of the largest magazines, as well as the “inevitable flight toward the Web.”

Despite those challenges, the editor said the magazine is having a very strong year.

Cosmo isn’t alone, though, in suffering on the newsstand. InStyle’s single-copy sales fell 26.5 percent in September, and Vogue’s sales declined 28.1 percent, while Glamour, which came in fourth in newsstand sales with 260,416 with its Olivia Wilde cover, nonetheless saw sales plummet 49.7 percent from September 2013.

Returning to September 2014, Vanity Fair’s Natalia Vodianova cover, which sold 193,003 copies, wasn’t too far behind its Condé Nast cousin Glamour. While Seventeen magazine sold 189,500 copies featuring Ariana Grande, edging out sister publications Elle — which had Kristen Stewart on its cover and sold 178,000 copies — and Marie Claire, which sold 168,500 with Blake Lively. Harper’s Bazaar sold 164,500 copies with a variety of newsstand covers shot by Carine Roitfeld. The global fashion director put together a portfolio of what she deemed to be iconic women. Her U.S. newsstand covers included Lady Gaga, Penélope Cruz and Linda Evangelista.

Men’s magazines GQ and Esquire made their mark next. GQ sold 125,954 copies with its Adam Driver cover and Esquire nabbed 106,500 single-copy sales with its issue featuring Chris Pratt. Allure (82,276 with Chloë Grace Moretz), Lucky (77,115 with Dakota Fanning) and Teen Vogue (72,619 with Kendall Jenner) followed suit.

Although not a fashion title, Town & Country, which carries a fair amount of luxury advertisers, corralled 54,500 single-copy sales with Naomi Watts on the cover.

The lowest sales belonged to Condé Nast titles Details and W, with 35,277 copies and 31,963 copies, respectively. Details featured actor Idris Elba, while W showcased Rihanna, dubbing the entertainer “The World’s Wildest Style Icon.” W editor in chief Stefano Tonchi said of the newsstand sales figure, “W takes great pride in our success as a subscriber-based magazine. Our September 2014 issue featuring Rihanna did extremely well with a newsstand sell-through rate of over 45 percent and digital page views up over 95 percent year-over-year.”

On the bright side, Details saw September sales fall only 0.8 percent over last year, while W saw its newsstand sales dip 4.9 percent. It should be noted that W is not known as a major player on the newsstand.

While total single-copy sales incorporate print and digital sales, the AAM also released a report highlighting the top 25 digital gainers in September by total paid, verified circulation. Of that bunch, Shape had the highest digital circulation that month with 230,000, marking a 139 percent increase. The biggest percent change, however, went to In Touch Weekly, which experienced a 2,223 percent rise to 9,685.

wwd.com

 

[Miss Dalloway]

Actually, some of the other numbers are shocking as well! Vanity Fair sold very badly for Sept, last year Princess Diana had over 300K issues sold! Allure is the ultimate disaster! And Vogue? How it kills me that once they have models on the cover, it doesn't sell! I put together selling numbers (that i could find on WWD) from previous years:

US Vogue March 2008 - Drew Barrymore : 397,000 copies.
US Vogue September 2008-Keira Knightley : 559,000 copies
US Vogue March 2009-Michelle Obama : 560,000 copies
US Vogue September 2010 - Halle Berry: 559,000 copies
US Vogue March 2011-Lady Gaga: 445,000
US Vogue March 2012- Adele: 410,343.
US Vogue September 2012 - Lady Gaga: 602,000 copies
US Vogue March 2013- Beyonce: 340,000 copies sold

So basically US Vogue's September issue selling 359,703 copies, is well below expectations! Its more of a March issue sales result. And speaking of March; if reports are true, that April infamous issue sold around 250k, and outsold Rihanna on March, it means that issue must have sold a little over 200,000!! Those are very bad results for them for 2014. It also kills the theory that "anyone would sell on March/Sept issues" into the ground! And most painfully of all, Models do not sell!! Not EVEN on September!

 

[Benn98]

I think the main reason W lost out on sales with that cover was the poor execution. Rihanna got the safest month of the year yet failed to make an impression. It was too unconventional and blurry and it didnt stand out on the newsstand. Multi covers couldnt even save Bazaar from it's slump. Those covers too were too quirky and marked Gaga's 2nd cover in one year. That's overmuch, Glenda's really insulting her reader's intelligence if she thought nobody would notice. Probably Bazaar had an even tougher year since they had Daria for Feb. If a group shot of famous models couldnt break even for Sept, just imagine how foul Daria's sales mustve been in a quiet month like Feb. Hopefully Aniston's current cover will lighten their balance sheet. They really should get rid of Glenda, but they wont as she's a yes (wo)man. She's running that magazine to the ground with her mediocre vision. Tilberis must be turning in her grave. Theoretically Vogue had a stellar year and just about broke their own records from a pc pov. Women of colour, women of different shape, a man, models etc all in one year. It's a shame that the sales apect of it was so dissapointing. Anyway, that September dud is just further proof that models just isnt profitable for US Vogue. I'm still a bit annoyed with the random inclusion of Imaam though. I found her very lacking and all the other girls booked international Vogue covers and campaigns except her.

 

[Srdjan]

Such a tough year for the magazines. Something weird is going on.

 

[mepps]

American women are not interested in models on fashion mag covers. This has been true for years. Anna always knew this, and the numbers prove it.

 

[Deleted member 45369]

Idk.... All of these numbers are really bad. I think it has less to do with models vs actresses and more to do with the times were living in. I'll admit, it becoming rare for even I to buy a magazine these days and I love them. I think Grayson Carter had a blunt quote a about "nothing working on the newsstand" plain and simple.

 

[Deleted member 116957]

I honestly didn't realize that Harper's Bazaar sells so badly in comparison to Vogue, damn (164,500 vs. 359,703). Have they always been that different?