What makes an editor in chief great ?

[BerlinRocks]

i'm not sure there's such a thread ...
so don't bother if you feel the need to merge.

with the (chaotic) departure of carine roitfeld as editor in chief of Vogue Paris, the role and skills of an editor in chief has been kind of talked-truth (i'm not sure i can find a correct sentence, there ... être abordé de façon honnête ?)

this thread is not in particular about Carine Roitfeld, but the situation of "Kings and Queens" of Fashion Magazine Industry has really evolved (and lately, the work of CR at Vogue Paris has been a lot criticzed).
so what is to you a great EDITOR IN CHIEF ? Who represent that person, why ?
what makes the role of the EIC so important for a magazine ? Is there too much power in that position ? which power is thAT ?
etc.

 

[ultramarine]

I think a great EditorinChief can take two directions:

*Commercial: She is a people pleaser and shows what people want to see (Anna)

*Creative: Has a point of view and displays it ... it draws attention by the fact that its different/interesting


.. dont you agree?

 

[markese91]

I think a great editor in chief knows how to edit, knows how to build a good team, and knows office and industry politics. I think if you have those qualities you'll create a directional publication that makes money. I could expound but I think everything is pretty self explanatory.

 

[xPedro]

I think the importance of the editor-in-chief is the fact that he is the connection between the brands and the mass, so basically he "chooses" which brands will appear on the magazine there so which brands will be seen and bought by everyone.

 

[Lina5]

it's too many times just about pleasing the advertisers, trying to get even more advertising, and, of course, setting up promotional techniques to get more readers ... content just gets left behind

 

[markese91]

I think content gets left behind because majority of the world... isn't looking at it.editors are looking at that bottom line

 

[e-v-elina]

editor-in-chiefs are so last year. watch out, social media is coming.

but what makes her/him great? i agree with ultramarine

Creative: Has a point of view and displays it ... it draws attention by the fact that its different/interesting

having a point of view is really important. and good character of course.

 

[tigerrouge]

In general terms, I think a "good" editor is someone who knows how to apply the art of compromise, where you don't allow one aspect to dominate at the continued expense of another. The result is a steady, successful magazine that brings in the money, pleases the masses, and retains some cachet.

A "great" editor seems to be someone who brings a truly individual vision to the publication, but I get the feeling that the more mundane aspects of the editor's role are often left for other people to carry out, while they float about in self-indulgence. Perhaps the outcome is more amusing for the reader, but in terms of respect for handling the entire range of responsibilities of the job, maybe there's less to be impressed about, but most people wouldn't look at it from that boring angle, until the magazine starts being a drain on the financial department, and the editor gets despatched.

The bland magazine... that sort of end product is easy to deride, but nevertheless, the creation of a continually successful commercial publication is not something that any person can produce, no matter how much they might like reading magazines and imagining how they'd do it better, because it calls on a range of unseen skills that a lot of people have no interest in, because it's not glamorous, it's the experience of being cold, hard and commercial, and loving results more than hemlines.

In a way, a lot of people wouldn't want to be that person (and to produce the resulting magazine) but the great thing is, everyone can now put forth their own content in a range of formats, for a readership as general or personal as they prefer. They don't have to worry about stuff like sales figures, and they can use it to gain as much personal gratification as they desire.

I would say, as an editor, you're not producing a publication for yourself, you're producing it through yourself. Of course the content is coloured by what you believe should be featured, but you're there to provide a useful service to others - to inspire, amuse, inform - rather than to indulge yourself. It's a mindset... where you're controlling an empire but in a depersonalised way, yet somehow managing to make the content come alive.

Or maybe I'm just insane and no-one's realised it yet, because I've been very quiet about it.