Last month, it came out that former LA Times Publisher David Hiller had turned over control of the Los Angeles Times Magazine to the business side. But he hadn't bothered to tell anybody on the editorial side. Communications company in action.
An ethics uproar ensued. Sam Zell's minions had whored out the LA Times news brand to sell copies of slick, commercial pap. The New York Times wrote an article. Russ Stanton announced that steps would be taken to make sure readers weren't confused about who was producing the magazine. Perhaps the whole thing would be canceled.
Fast forward to today. The Retch has been provided a copy of the magazine's mission statement ("Loving L.A. Celebrating L.A."); a list of editorial features (L.A. 3.0; Dating My Wife; A Dog's Life) and staffers (Editor in Chief is Annie Gilbar, ex co-host of "Annie's Eye" on the Home Shopping Network.)
Oh, and that whole thing about whoring out the LA Times news brand? Continues apace. The magazine's logo is LA, written in LA Times banner font. And the name is still apparently Los Angeles Times Magazine.
First issue, supposedly the size of Town and Country, and on better stock than the old LA Times magazine, is out Sept. 7. It'll focus on guess what? Fashion! No upsells there.
Full Power Point spread follows
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
gosh, it's the magazine of the future--today!
gag.
Gee, a product that probably will make a profit! How crazy is that? We need more unprofitable sections like Highway 1 and Outdoors so we can be true journalists and feel good about our careers.
"Remember, dear readers, you heard it hear first. Off the record, on the QT, and very hush, hush."
And if isn't clear the sarcastic quote from "L.A. Confidential" is directed at the progenitors of that PowerPointless show, it is.
"Gee, a product that probably will make a profit! How crazy is that? We need more unprofitable sections like Highway 1 and Outdoors so we can be true journalists and feel good about our careers."
How did 9 columns of space in Highway 1 fronting the classifieds lose money? It didn't. Besides, sections are P&L'd, remember? Except they are and if that's the only way of deciding what stays and goes, then everything but the A section would be gone.
I didn't see ONE original idea for this new magazine in that little slide show. What makes you think it will be profitable where the other one failed?
It's not necessarily about original ideas or even original content. It is about packaging and repackaging "news and information." If it is profitable, I'd bet that it's because it will simply cost far less to produce because you're simply using fewer critical-thinking human beings to put it out.
How can you lose with section titles like Hollywood Rules and A Day in the Life? Brilliant!! Now I know why these editors are being paid the big bucks. Hell, if it's half as good as Metromix, it will be...unreadable.
The only good thing about this magazine is that when it belly flops, the biz side can no longer blame print--though I'm sure they will try.
The magazine has been dreadful since Miv Schaaf had a column. It can't be worse than Angeleno.
This is obviously the wrong venue for an optimistic opinion, but at the risk of reader backlash: This could be really good for the the Times.
It's an impressive masthead. No disrespect to the former LAT magazine staff, but Rip Georges as Creative Director is, by itself, a huge deal. It's obviously not going to be the same magazine, but who cares if it's not a newsroom piece. A monthly mag that attracts real revenue could be the thing that SAVES the newsroom.
Think this mag will bring in enough revenue to service $13B in debt? Casting it as a newsroom savior might be overstepping *just* a touch.
I can't wait to see what a "gift guide" is, personally. Who'd'a thunka THAT?? And ... running that in December! Cutting edge stuff.
Maybe someone will decide that a "best restaurants in L.A." issue could be good? Then maybe something about being "green." Only -- the people talking about being "green" could be, like, movie stars and stuff.
Here's more on Ms. Gilbar
According to Amazon.com, she's written lots of kids books.
Uh, did anyone notice that the PowerPoint misspells "newsstand"?
I agree with the person who said the old magazine was pretty bad. And it was losing money. Something had to be done. I don't know if this is the right direction, but with the NYT magazine turning a profit of nearly $400 million a year, I can see why Zell would want to make a change. Who knows– if it does well, maybe the paper can buy back some of its ad space.
The magazine had been beyond dreadful since about the mid-nineties, not coincidentally around the time that it decided to stop paying semi-competitive word rates and to purge every editor who had the slightest idea of how to edit a magazine story. I'm not a Gilbar fan - she's run more publications into the ground than most of us have even read, and her instincts are pretty fluffy - but she at least knows what a magazine is supposed to look like, she's accumulated some decent staffers, and she's apparently paying real-world rates.
"The magazine had been beyond dreadful since about the mid-nineties...."
Thank you for that insight, that clears a lot up.
Post a Comment