The Business of Magazines | Page 208 | the Fashion Spot

The Business of Magazines

Well, I for one can't wait for him to be gone with his superficial updates to our edition and shared covers. As it is the only thing 'British' about the current British Vogue is the title in the O masthead. And the high level staff leaving after one year? No, not a good sign. Unless of course he gave Venetia and her gang a heads up.

Well, you can't get more superficial than putting a woman on your cover because she's getting married. In 2018/2019.

Also, fashion to a degree is superficial and to my knowledge, Edward only had one shared cover with the February 2018 one. As the EIC of THE biggest of the big 4 Vogue US, I'm sure Edward won't have any reprints/shared covers (and if he does, that'll surely be a Conde Nast decision to save costs and will be a directive handed down to him from the suits). And Anna's high level staff are also leaving...

You know that old saying, 'one person's trash is another person's treasure'? Yeah.
 
Condé Nast International, once a stalwart, struggles with losses
Keith J. Kelly
3-4 minutes

upload_2018-11-29_18-3-43.gif
London-based Condé Nast International in recent years has been regarded as the rising star of the privately held publishing empire owned by the Newhouse family — but a look at the available numbers for the International wing shows it has wrestled with steep losses as recently as 2016.

In Britain, the company’s last publicly available report filed in December 2017 for the 2016 fiscal year showed the publisher of British Vogue, British GQ, Vogue Paris and an Italian edition of Vanity Fair among 40 other international titles lost nearly $50 million.

That’s not quite as bad as the domestic Condé Nast Publications, which lost $120 million in 2017 and was hoping it could cut losses in half to $60 million for 2018.

The Conde Nast International arm includes only the European publications headquartered in London but not licensing and publications deals elsewhere around the world, from India to China, a CNI spokeswoman told the Post. Those numbers are not publicly disclosed, but the spokeswoman insisted if they were disclosed it would have shown an overall profit for all overseas operations in 2016 and 2017, as well as a projected profit for 2018. The European titles appear to be wrestling with many of the problems afflicting US publications plus some one-time costs that hit earnings.

CNI, covering the European publications, reported a group loss in 2016 — equivalent to operating loss in the US — of $8.3 million on revenue of $511.7 million, according to regulatory filings in London, based on current British pound-to-US dollar conversion rate. Its “total comprehensive loss” in Europe was about $48 million.

The numbers show that European revenue was up about 4.4 percent over the preceding year, when Conde Nast International recorded about $490.2 million in revenue. But in 2015, the European branch was still reporting a “profit before taxation” — roughly equivalent to operating profit in the US — of about $6 million and a “total comprehensive profit” — roughly equivalent to net profit in US terms — of $7.8 million. Figures for CNI for fiscal 2017 are expected to be filed next month.

In the US, Condé Nast a decade ago was estimated to pull in $1 billion by itself in total revenue. Today, the combined domestic and international wings are estimated to have about $1 billion in total revenue between them.

The change has been fueled by the domestic the slide over 10 years as advertisers began leaving print for digital, and Condé Nast International’s rapid expansion over the same period under its CEO, Jonathan Newhouse, now destined to be chairman of a newly combined Condé Nast.

Conde Nast International today is said to generate between 40 to 50 percent of the revenue of the new combined company, according to an insider.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/27/conde-nast-international-once-a-stalwart-struggles-with-losses/
 
That Washington Post article.. likening Edward to an indie filmmaker is a questionable comparison. I guess i just expected the WP would examine their 'next anna wintour' statement a bit more critically and not just overly gushy towards Edward. Anna Wintour edits a magazine, but she's also a power player who influences fashion as a business more broadly, and they didn't really touch on that at all in discussing Edward. He may one day edit American Vogue, but that doesn't make him 'the next Anna Wintour'.
 
I don’t get all the gush over Edward. His first year in Vogue was characterized by full-on studio portraits, messy outdoor covers, with terrible art direction. Don’t get me started with the boring content (articles and editorials). But somehow he’s the knigh and shining armor who is to save US Vogue?

UK Vogue is NOT US Vogue. The audience of UK Vogue is different from US Vogue. The US market is highly commercialized and very focused on Hollywood. To think that Edward can or will ever dare to change that is foolish.
 
The Washington Post article was nothing more than a puff piece. All I got from it was how wonderful Vogue UK was doing with all this diversity without even touching on the questionable subjects of how Lucinda's sacking was handled, sharing a cover with W magazine and the rumored departure of Venetia - I know the interview with Edward was completed a while back ago but if Robin wasn't so biased she would have followed up with a phone call before send it to the print; one of the pros of writing for a daily newspaper is that you can update your piece up to the point of printing, which is normally half a day before the publishing date.

And yes, as magsaddict pointed out, the profile omits one of the most important things about Anna's success - her business sense. In addition to editing Vogue and being Condé Nast's (questionable, dare I say) artistic director, she is the mastermind behind the MET Gala, works closely with Bolton re themes and the exhibitions themselves, is quite involved with the CFDA, consults with designers and department stores, creates business opportunities for young brands by connecting them with investors, advances careers and so much more. I am not happy with Vogue US today, but it's undeniable that whoever comes in after Anna will have some large shoes to fill. Is Edward fit for all this?
 
Alastair McKimm is leaving I-D magazine. I guess he will move to British Vogue.

Thanks for the info! Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Boys club is alive and well after all. Just look at Italian Vogue.
 
That Washington Post article.. likening Edward to an indie filmmaker is a questionable comparison. I guess i just expected the WP would examine their 'next anna wintour' statement a bit more critically and not just overly gushy towards Edward. Anna Wintour edits a magazine, but she's also a power player who influences fashion as a business more broadly, and they didn't really touch on that at all in discussing Edward. He may one day edit American Vogue, but that doesn't make him 'the next Anna Wintour'.

The most important (and accurate) comparison in this article is the Anna/blockbuster one. With the once cash cow Glamour folding (and Vanessa Friedman in the NYT asking why didn't Glamour get a better send off for the end of their monthly print magazines - probably because this is an embarrassment for Anna so Conde will try to make Glamour folding a non-story so people don't start asking even more questions), Anna is killing the magazine industry, or at least Conde Nast as the "Artistic Director".

This is the most important part because this is a subtle hit job on Anna, just as much as it's a puff piece on Edward (Anna is the old stale guard who's bleeding money, Edward is the future). The fact that this piece was written by Pulitzer Prize winner Robin Givhan (a woman who also holds a rarefied space in the fashion industry) and was published in WaPo, which beats the NYT in online traffic, is more evidence for this (newspaper print is also the old guard and dying just like magazines so why not 'introduce' Edward in a profile for the most read online newspaper in America?).

Hasn't the 'tea' on this site been that all the celebs want UK Vogue covers now and not US Vogue? Doesn't this article seem to confirm that tea? And if that's the case, doesn't that mean he's already establishing himself as a power player who people find influential?

I don’t get all the gush over Edward. His first year in Vogue was characterized by full-on studio portraits, messy outdoor covers, with terrible art direction. Don’t get me started with the boring content (articles and editorials). But somehow he’s the knigh and shining armor who is to save US Vogue?

UK Vogue is NOT US Vogue. The audience of UK Vogue is different from US Vogue. The US market is highly commercialized and very focused on Hollywood. To think that Edward can or will ever dare to change that is foolish.

The same things you're saying about UK Vogue is also US Vogue currently. It's not as if US Vogue is doing any better in creativity, cover shoots.

Also, see my point above about all the A-list celebs clamoring to cover UK and not US Vogue. I'm sure Edward's in no rush to change anything in that respect regarding Vogue's relationship with Hollywood. Also, wasn't the complaint about Edward's Oprah cover was that it was 'too Americanized' and that Oprah isn't relevant in Britain? He's already looking to Hollywood for cover subjects.

And if that Ariana Grande rumor in the rumor thread is true, Edward will have beat Anna in putting her on the cover. Talk about sloppy seconds. He also gave Rihanna her first big 4 September cover. He's good on the celeb front.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Anna didn't become oh so powerful with the snap of a finger - that took years. Why isn't Edward provided the same opportunity to grow and develop and become powerful in his own why?

And yes, as magsaddict pointed out, the profile omits one of the most important things about Anna's success - her business sense. In addition to editing Vogue and being Condé Nast's (questionable, dare I say) artistic director, she is the mastermind behind the MET Gala, works closely with Bolton re themes and the exhibitions themselves, is quite involved with the CFDA, consults with designers and department stores, creates business opportunities for young brands by connecting them with investors, advances careers and so much more. I am not happy with Vogue US today, but it's undeniable that whoever comes in after Anna will have some large shoes to fill. Is Edward fit for all this?

1. See my last point. Why do people want Edward to be on the level of Anna, despite not having 30 years of editing US Vogue? Makes no sense.

2. Why haven't people taken a step back to look at the forest from the trees? All the major editors that have been replaced in the past 2 years - Graydon Carter, Cindi Leive, Robbie Meyers - outside of Nina Garcia, potentially, we can all argue that the other editors were replaced by people who have not filled in their predecessors shoes.

And yes, those people definitely deserve time to grow in their positions since they've only been in those positions for a year or so, but Radhika will never be Graydon.

And that's by design. Suits at Conde and Hearst aren't hiring the next blockbuster editors for the dying industry that's magazines - that costs too much money. We've all seen the articles in this thread.

So I don't see why Edward, who does have excitement and buzz surrounding him which is all you need in the (largely) superficial fashion industry, is not right for the role? We have all seen what Anna has done at Conde, do you all think the suits will want someone to have that same amount of power to end up costing the company millions of dollars (and that's just what we know based on what we've been told, it could be a lot worse financially since they aren't a public company and don't have to provide earning reports)?

I mean, if it's not Edward, who is it? Elaine is doing tv/wants to be a personality, Eva Chen is trash, Amy Astley is Anna 2.0 - there would be no excitement at all with her appointment.

I just think that the sooner you all come to terms with Edward as the impending EIC of US Vogue and stop fighting it the better you will all feel :lol:
 
Interesting numbers in the Dec US Vogue's Postal Service Ownership, Management, and Circulation numbers. The most recent digital issue sold only 27,435 copies. And only 68% of their total print and digital copies were paid in the past 12 months, on average, so only 720,028 were paid copies.
 
Carlos Nazario is supposed to take a new position in a publication. Highly possible that it will be at I-D to replace Alistair McKimm.
 
Interesting numbers in the Dec US Vogue's Postal Service Ownership, Management, and Circulation numbers. The most recent digital issue sold only 27,435 copies. And only 68% of their total print and digital copies were paid in the past 12 months, on average, so only 720,028 were paid copies.
Whoa!! Now that is even worse than I imagined. They had a truly horrible year of covers, so I expected poor sales (no one bought Amal's issue, and even worse were the Sairose, Claire.etc), but this truly is a very bad situation for them.

Maybe now Jonathan finally has a proper reason to fire Wintour, what glorious karma that would be!
 
Interesting numbers in the Dec US Vogue's Postal Service Ownership, Management, and Circulation numbers. The most recent digital issue sold only 27,435 copies. And only 68% of their total print and digital copies were paid in the past 12 months, on average, so only 720,028 were paid copies.

Yikes at these numbers. Yikes. The end for Anna has to be near. She won't be fired because Conde will need to save face most importantly and I don't think they would do Anna like that but if needed, I'm sure they'll ask her to leave, give her ton of money, and spin it as Anna leaving on her own terms instead of being forced out. And that includes leaving as Artistic Director too. She's done an awful job with the other magazines and can't even sell copies of her own magazine with the heritage of the Vogue name behind her. At this point it's only a matter of time.
 
Whoa!! Now that is even worse than I imagined. /QUOTE]


Just to be clear, the numbers I posted were for paid subscritions. There were an additional 369,000 free/nominal rate subscriptions, plus 111,000 newsstand copies sold.

The point of my post was really just how misleading circulation numbers are, when free subscriptions aren't taken into account
 
^ Hopefully WWD does an article with actual numbers for each month, like they used to. But somethng tells me CN PR Machine would put a stop to it. It just looks like an all around record breaking bad year for Vogue!
 
So it's not surprise why they went for Nick Jonas and Priyanka for their january cover....In these hard times for Vogue, what you guys think it actually help them? More celebrities? being more avant-garde?....im wondering...
 
So it's not surprise why they went for Nick Jonas and Priyanka for their january cover....In these hard times for Vogue, what you guys think it actually help them? More celebrities? being more avant-garde?....im wondering...

I think Anna will definitely appoint more celebrities to be on her cover. But judging by her recent decision, she could possibly adapt a more tabloid-like, agile sensibility where, instead of planning cover subjects in advance, she'd look at certain internet (read: instagram) phenomenons first, and immediately prepare her arsenal to make a cover out of them. On this note, we would see less Hawkesworth or Tyler Mitchell, and more Leibovitz because the latter seems to be on her speed dial a lot.
 
I don't get why US Vogue doesn't put more content in the magazine to entice more readers, because tbh i wouldn't pay full price for it with the amount of content they have right now (i'm subscribing). And also they always release their key magazine contents on the web way before the issue hit the stands (just like the Priyanka article and cover shoot). I guess they prefer to 'break the internet' now than selling copies.
 
I don't get why US Vogue doesn't put more content in the magazine to entice more readers, because tbh i wouldn't pay full price for it with the amount of content they have right now (i'm subscribing). And also they always release their key magazine contents on the web way before the issue hit the stands (just like the Priyanka article and cover shoot). I guess they prefer to 'break the internet' now than selling copies.

Rigida, that's been my contention from the start. They actually had it right years ago before Vogue really developed their digital presence. Normally we'd see a preview of the cover article and images online, with a nudge to see the full length version in the print edition. Dazed, Another, Pop all function like that. If you don't see scans of Dazed/Pop content on TFS or related forums, you won't see it in full on their website or social media. And what's more, those indie-type magazines rely more on advertising funds than Vogue and Harper's with their transparent advertorial-type stories. You'd think they would in fact release full edits because it would help their advertisers? But no. They tease readers into buying the issue, and that's how it should be. It's sort of the same way news outlets like WWD, Business of Fashion, and newspapers would have pay walls. It keeps the content exclusive, and while generating an income to keep them afloat.

As for the matter of more content? That's entirely on the ad team. The more ads a magazine can run, the more content they can put out. Vogue's ad page count decreased and that's the reason why the content is less. But there are also other reasons, imo. The shift in American advertisers moving away from print and more towards digital, the ever-changing whims of the modern consumer, the lack of enthusiasm of the current team generating content at Vogue, etc etc. It's a situation unique to American magazines in general at the moment, not only Vogue.
 
Last edited:
They actually had it right years ago before Vogue really developed their digital presence.

I remember getting excited to read their cover stories, People are talking about ++. Jonathan Van Meeter pieces were lovely. Now they're mostly shallow throwaway pieces.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,462
Messages
15,303,637
Members
89,474
Latest member
nvtp1233
Back
Top