Comments on: Adios, Ms. Reichl? http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/10/06/adios-ms-reichl/ Uncle Karl approved since 2009 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:59:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kai http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/10/06/adios-ms-reichl/comment-page-1/#comment-8128 Kai Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:23:23 +0000 http://www.femmeiniste.com/?p=3021#comment-8128 Ha. Well, I am fantasizing about a new kitchen these days but only because I have developed a bad case of glass tile envy. Given that I don't actually own my kitchen that doesn't do much good for anyone. I have to admit that though I have a lot of magazines I read, the mainstream mags that I would be most saddened to lose as individuals are the ones that are in much less crowded categories (e.g. Scientific American, Wired). With luck, those will be the ones hit least hard by this process? Aside from that, I'd be bummed to lose Harper's Bazaar, as I tend to like its content best of the women's fashion magazines (a little less high society-obsessed than Vogue), but if InStyle folded... well, I'd just read Lucky. Ha. Well, I am fantasizing about a new kitchen these days but only because I have developed a bad case of glass tile envy. Given that I don’t actually own my kitchen that doesn’t do much good for anyone.

I have to admit that though I have a lot of magazines I read, the mainstream mags that I would be most saddened to lose as individuals are the ones that are in much less crowded categories (e.g. Scientific American, Wired). With luck, those will be the ones hit least hard by this process? Aside from that, I’d be bummed to lose Harper’s Bazaar, as I tend to like its content best of the women’s fashion magazines (a little less high society-obsessed than Vogue), but if InStyle folded… well, I’d just read Lucky.

]]> By: Betsy http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/10/06/adios-ms-reichl/comment-page-1/#comment-7843 Betsy Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:00:59 +0000 http://www.femmeiniste.com/?p=3021#comment-7843 Hrmm. No good ideas on how the print mags should get through this, there is the oft-repeated mantra of putting more content online (which then of course puts you at risk of losing sub revenue since everything is freely available on-screen ... NYT, anyone?) but I would like to point out that a few magazines (so far) seem to be managing it. The New Yorker, for instance, seems to be in OK shape, and from a purely casual reader point of view I venture to say this is due in part to universally praised, high-quality content, which people will, it seems, pay for, even though some (all?) of it is available online. (I think this is partly because the articles are so meaty and long and picture-less, the content doesn't lend itself as well to an online read - much better to sit back with the real thing for an hour or two). Also, as is obvious from a casual flip-through, The New Yorker isn't spending a ton of money on glossy photo spreads and high-concept visual imagery (see Vogue and, one guesses, Gourmet). I have no idea what they pay their contributors, but the prestige of getting published in the New Yorker might, perhaps, keep some costs low. Anyway, I'd think that mags with a similar profile - revered content and lower costs - i.e. The Economist? - might do OK, while some of your glossier, younger, serving-a-less-defined-niche magazines might be suffering. I'd be surprised if there aren't more cutbacks in some crowded categories like bridal, women's beauty/health, and particularly home decor and furnishing. How many people are really fantasizing about new kitchens these days? I think Vogue will be OK, but will Vanity Fair cut back visibly? And who knows, maybe New Yorker isn't as healthy as I think it is. I also hear that Food & Wine is doing pretty badly. ?? Hrmm. No good ideas on how the print mags should get through this, there is the oft-repeated mantra of putting more content online (which then of course puts you at risk of losing sub revenue since everything is freely available on-screen … NYT, anyone?) but I would like to point out that a few magazines (so far) seem to be managing it. The New Yorker, for instance, seems to be in OK shape, and from a purely casual reader point of view I venture to say this is due in part to universally praised, high-quality content, which people will, it seems, pay for, even though some (all?) of it is available online. (I think this is partly because the articles are so meaty and long and picture-less, the content doesn’t lend itself as well to an online read – much better to sit back with the real thing for an hour or two). Also, as is obvious from a casual flip-through, The New Yorker isn’t spending a ton of money on glossy photo spreads and high-concept visual imagery (see Vogue and, one guesses, Gourmet). I have no idea what they pay their contributors, but the prestige of getting published in the New Yorker might, perhaps, keep some costs low.

Anyway, I’d think that mags with a similar profile – revered content and lower costs – i.e. The Economist? – might do OK, while some of your glossier, younger, serving-a-less-defined-niche magazines might be suffering. I’d be surprised if there aren’t more cutbacks in some crowded categories like bridal, women’s beauty/health, and particularly home decor and furnishing. How many people are really fantasizing about new kitchens these days?

I think Vogue will be OK, but will Vanity Fair cut back visibly? And who knows, maybe New Yorker isn’t as healthy as I think it is. I also hear that Food & Wine is doing pretty badly. ??

]]>