The Glamour plus-sized-model phenomenon continues to pay dividends for the magazine. The Condé Nast title caused a sensation when it featured two photos of plus-sized models in recent issues (see aboe and below). Now, editor Cindi Leive has used the group photo above in the magazine's first calendar. The "Inspiration" calendar is being bundled with a subscription offer on Glamour.com. It's not quite Calendar Girls, the calendar featuring nude British ladies and strategically placed flowerpots and teacups that inspired a 2003 movie by the same name. But it's nonetheless a reminder that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.
What's with the creepy baby photos that have been popping up on magazine covers lately? Art directors these days seem to be in love with using babies to illustrate everything from the anti-vaccine movement (Wired) to crybaby bankers (New York) to our national disillusionment (Time). (The full-looking diaper on that Time cover baby is probably bothering him more than the state of the union.) Or, from the success of World's Strictest Parents to Time's calling for an end to overparenting, maybe we've just had it with whiny kids.
Given everything that magazine editors have to worry about these days, from staunching newsstand losses to launching brand extensions to helping hawk ads, how much do awards still matter? That was Glamour editor Cindi Leive's first question to a panel of editors Wednesday at an American Society of Magazine Editors luncheon on winning National Magazine Awards. When expense budgets are tight, perhaps awards matter less. Submissions for the past year's so-called Ellies were off 13 percent. In such an environment, "I do think [awards] give you a partial, limited immunity for a while," quipped John Rasmus, editor of National Geographic Adventure, whose award-winning magazine recently cut its frequency from 10 to eight times a year. Panelists also mulled judges' perceived bias in favor of big, well-financed titles and against women's magazines. Peggy Northrop, global editor of Reader's Digest, wondered why female judges are "especially critical" of women's titles, while admitting she used to take them less seriously herself. This year, with ASME's introduction of several new digital awards categories, women's magazines could level the playing field. That is, if they can scrape together the submission fees.
A feeling of déjà vu came over us when we got our November copy of Bon Appetit, with its scrumptious cover image of a roast turkey. The cover choice wouldn’t have been surprising—have you seen a food magazine that didn’t have a turkey on its November cover?—were it not for the fact that just two issues ago, Bon App seemed to run a nearly identical cover. When we double-checked, we found the September bird was not a turkey but actually a chicken, which Bon App told us its readers apparently can’t get enough of these days. Maybe so. But now that Condé Nast has put all its eggs now in the Bon App basket, so to speak, it could be one more reason for all those unhappy Gourmet fans to cry fowl, er, foul.
When I started reading Gourmet, the word foodie did not exist.I was also an avid reader of Teen Beat at the time, so maybe my palate was not fully developed yet. But yeah, I was a 13-year-old who knew what Shaun Cassidy wanted in a girlfriend and who Zanne Early Stewart was. Gourmet was special to me. It didn’t matter if you were 13 or 70, a shared love of good food and (at a certain age) wine welcomed you into a loyal community. The writing was inviting and never pretentious. The editors weren’t foodies who dictated! We all were food enthusiasts! Alright, I’m channeling Nora Ephron, but I’m also in mourning. I will admit that I wasn’t always happy with the magazine's changes over the past few years, but nothing is perfect for 68 years in a row. I'm glad that Food & Wine,Bon Appetit and Saveur are still, well, cooking along. I still have something in print to look forward to every month. There are, however, some less savory aspects to consider in this new Gourmet-less world: Rachael, Sandra and Paula. The culinary axis of evil.
Is Sports Illustrated making a bid for female readers? Not exactly. The Time Inc. magazine is just going pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, as are the NFL and Nascar, to name a few other organizations. The Oct. 12 issue, on newsstands Thursday, will sport a pink logo (matching Daniel Graham's pink gloves, as the Denver Bronco joins other NFL players in donning pink this week to heighten awareness of the disease). SI editor Terry McDonell wanted to run a pink logo sometime this month and decided to team with the NFL's own effort, his rep explained. Not surprisingly, it's the first time the sports magazine has colored its logo pink. You go, guys.
Let's get real here: it's a Tucker Max/Joe Francis/Jon Gosselin/Kanye West world we're living in, where the term "gentleman" seems as outdated as dressing for dinner and controlling that nasty temper. But GQ thinks and/or hopes the gentleman is not dead. That notion comes in handy, seeing that the magazine has an upcoming charitable effort dubbed The Gentleman's Fund, in its third year, that raises support and awareness for "issues that are essential to modern men." Somewhat vague and tagline-ish, but their heart seems to be in the right place. As part of the project -- there's a fancy dress-up ball on Oct. 28 in New York -- the pub has done a study on "The 21st Century Gentleman," finding that the majority of men polled, 67 percent, think it's increasingly important to behave like a gentleman today. (As opposed to, say, knuckle-dragging Neaderthals). Their role models are Hollywood luminaries and political rock stars like President Barack Obama, George Clooney, Hugh Jackman and Will Smith. Wow, no David Letterman? Seventy-one percent of those polled donate money and time to charities, favoring education, kids and arts causes. The highest compliment is to be dubbed a gentleman, said both the men and women surveyed, scoring considerably higher than attributes like smart, funny, successful and handsome. (You'll have to show your work on that one, GQ). In general, the study presents a genteel attitude I haven't seen outside a Merchant Ivory flick or a Ketel One ad. If only it were true. Wouldn't that be nice?
After a phenomenally bad year for the publishing business, we'd like to think better times are ahead for our beloved newspapers and magazines. But the industry's esteemed prognosticators couldn't have been more wrong up until now. Last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers predicted that consumer magazines would end this year 4.5 percent up. This year, PwC revised that to a decline of 13.5 percent. ZenithOptimedia wasn't exactly on the money, either: Last year, it said the industry would grow 5.5 percent. This year, it lowered that to a decline of 10 percent and then 18 percent. Next year they're calling for better times. But to be fair, forecasting the media business these days is as futile as predicting the weather, and few did that better than the late George Carlin ("Weather forecast for tonight: dark"). Keep it simple, guys.
Once again, Barnes & Noble is giving special promotional space to magazines that use recycled paper. And once again, the month-long promotion is as much a shout-out to those titles with environmentally friendly practices (Natural Home, Mother Jones and The American Prospect are among the 10 featured this year) as it is a slap at their bigger brethren that don't. Since the promotion launched in January 2008 with Green America's Better Paper Project and Next Steps Marketing, the biggest publishing companies' titles have been conspicuously absent. There could be factors other than their commitment to being green (only magazines that voluntarily submit information on their recycled-paper use are considered for the promotion), but publishing companies have long complained that they can't afford to print on recycled paper. So ... publishing giants can't afford to use recycled paper, but indies like Mother Jones can? Somehow, that doesn't pass the sniff test.
Is the House of Mickey finally paying attention to its magazine business? You'd think being part of the Walt Disney Co., with its vast promotional opportunities, would give Disney FamilyFun a big leg-up. Yet, as the sole survivor of a shrinking magazine unit, it risks getting lost in Disney's sprawling empire. And since Disney sold its retail stores to The Children's Place in 2004, the title has gone missing from the chain. That's expected to change in 2010, however, now that Disney has bought back the stores. In a step in that direction, FamilyFun—which added "Disney" to its title earlier this year to capitalize on the famous name—is selling its first newsstand special in the top 69 Disney stores. The $9.99 Halloween special, sponsored solely by the "Got milk?" campaign, will also be distributed in Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart and elsewhere. The retail presence could help FamilyFun grow its single-copy sales, which account for less than 1 percent of its total circ. Still, FamilyFun hasn't done too badly on its own: It was one of the fastest-growing magazines in the first half of this year, with its total paid and verified circ increasing by 17.4 percent to 2.15 million.
