Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="M_Smith" data-source="post: 532" data-attributes="member: 9">Inside Conde Nast: Si Newhouse Reportedly &quot;Thrilled&quot; But &#039;Portfolio&#039; Is &quot;Wrong For Th<img src="http://gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/06/portfoliocover.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />It&#039;s been two months since <a href="http://gawker.com/news/conde-nast/" target="_blank">Conde Nast</a> floated its first very expensive issue of <a href="http://gawker.com/news/portfolio/" target="_blank">Portfolio</a>. Soon, the closing begins on the second issue. So how&#039;s it going? &quot;It&#039;s demoralizing to work for a magazine that has such a high profile pre-launch, incredible hype about the money they&#039;re spending, and great names,&quot; said one person familiar with the workings and friendly with the staff of the magazine. &quot;Then they come out with an issue that everybody slams. It was such a profound misfire that you&#039;d have to think that everybody there doesn&#039;t know what kind of magazine they need to do.&quot;What kind of magazine did they need to do? In June 2006, Lipman told the New York Times: &#039;&#039;This is serious business journalism—investigative, narrative, profiles—a commitment to long-form journalism, and telling that story with great design and art. This is not a lifestyle publication. This is a business publication.&#039;&#039;But that&#039;s not entirely what came out.Lipman—who had worked at the Wall Street Journal since she was 22—has never worked in magazines before, which rankles some of her staff. &quot;There is a group of editors who are very unhappy with Joanne and feel like she sort of doesn&#039;t &#039;get&#039; magazines and isn&#039;t being very creative,&quot; said a magazine staffer. &quot;She doesn&#039;t get magazines to the point where her judgment on writers isn&#039;t very good and her assignments are questionable.&quot;And the biggest gripe seems to be that the magazine may be paying lip service to being &quot;serious business journalism,&quot; but its first issue doesn&#039;t fulfill that mandate. &quot;It&#039;s totally wrong for the audience it&#039;s going for,&quot; said the source close to the magazine. &quot;They want to know deals. They want information that they can&#039;t get anywhere else. The <a href="http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/massive-portfolio-s-platinum-plated-debut" target="_blank">Observer article</a> said the magazine provides no narrative—they don&#039;t tell you how the money was made. And almost every single article in the first issue is tainted—there&#039;s lifestyle or pop culture dragged into it. The [hedge fund manager Ken] Griffin story is all about his art collection. The audience would rather read about the merger of two steel companies!&quot;This source added, &quot;The bottom line is, there&#039;s nothing in the magazine that is quote-unquote &#039;compelling&#039; if you&#039;re a business executive. There&#039;s nothing in there that you need to know.&quot;But does that necessarily spell doom for Portfolio? Without circ, newsstand, or ad revenue numbers, it&#039;s hard to gauge if the first issue did, indeed, flop. And according to another source at the magazine, &quot;Si Newhouse was thrilled&quot; with the debut issue. &quot;We still get to have a big budget, and we hear a lot of good things from people in the industry.&quot;This same staffer is also less convinced of an imminent staff mutiny. &quot;I think [Lipman] had a very strong view about what the magazine should be that some of the senior editors didn&#039;t agree with, and perhaps they were frustrated with what they perceived as a lack of listening, and her handing down directives,&quot; this source says. Indeed, another staff member adds, &quot;My sense about these kinds of editors is that they have to have huge egos and be imperious to get over this first part.&quot;One of Lipman&#039;s two deputy editors, Amy Stevens, is her longtime colleague from the WSJ, where Lipman, Stevens, and Laurie Cohen—who returned to the WSJ after two months at Portfolio—were a clique &quot;in a similar way that Jill Abramson, Maureen Dowd, and Alessandra Stanley are a clique at the New York Times,&quot; says one former WSJ staffer.&quot;I think morale at the magazine in general is good,&quot; says another Portfolio staffer. &quot;That might be because it&#039;s a launch, and there&#039;s momentum and excitement—but also, everyone&#039;s treated well. And there&#039;s very little hierarchy. Joanne will make calls, and some senior editors might have had issues, but generally the staff is harmonious.&quot;<a href="http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gawker/full?a=PgE1ci" target="_blank"><img src="http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gawker/full?i=PgE1ci" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />&lt;/img&gt;</a><a href="http://gawker.com/news/inside-conde-nast/si-newhouse-reportedly-thrilled-but-portfolio-is-wrong-for-the-audience-269903.php" target="_blank">More...</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="M_Smith, post: 532, member: 9"] [b]Inside Conde Nast: Si Newhouse Reportedly "Thrilled" But 'Portfolio' Is "Wrong For Th[/b] [IMG]http://gawker.com/assets/resources/2007/06/portfoliocover.jpg[/IMG]It's been two months since [URL="http://gawker.com/news/conde-nast/"]Conde Nast[/URL] floated its first very expensive issue of [I][URL="http://gawker.com/news/portfolio/"]Portfolio[/URL][/I]. Soon, the closing begins on the second issue. So how's it going? "It's demoralizing to work for a magazine that has such a high profile pre-launch, incredible hype about the money they're spending, and great names," said one person familiar with the workings and friendly with the staff of the magazine. "Then they come out with an issue that everybody slams. It was such a profound misfire that you'd have to think that everybody there doesn't know what kind of magazine they need to do." What kind of magazine did they need to do? In June 2006, Lipman told the [I]New York Times[/I]: ''This is serious business journalism—investigative, narrative, profiles—a commitment to long-form journalism, and telling that story with great design and art. This is not a lifestyle publication. This is a business publication.'' But that's not entirely what came out. Lipman—who had worked at the [I]Wall Street Journal[/I] since she was 22—has never worked in magazines before, which rankles some of her staff. "There is a group of editors who are very unhappy with Joanne and feel like she sort of doesn't 'get' magazines and isn't being very creative," said a magazine staffer. "She doesn't get magazines to the point where her judgment on writers isn't very good and her assignments are questionable." And the biggest gripe seems to be that the magazine may be paying lip service to being "serious business journalism," but its first issue doesn't fulfill that mandate. "It's totally wrong for the audience it's going for," said the source close to the magazine. "They want to know deals. They want information that they can't get anywhere else. The [URL="http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/massive-portfolio-s-platinum-plated-debut"][I]Observer[/I] article[/URL] said the magazine provides no narrative—they don't tell you how the money was made. And almost every single article in the first issue is tainted—there's lifestyle or pop culture dragged into it. The [hedge fund manager Ken] Griffin story is all about his art collection. The audience would rather read about the merger of two steel companies!" This source added, "The bottom line is, there's nothing in the magazine that is quote-unquote 'compelling' if you're a business executive. There's nothing in there that you need to know." But does that necessarily spell doom for [I]Portfolio[/I]? Without circ, newsstand, or ad revenue numbers, it's hard to gauge if the first issue did, indeed, flop. And according to another source at the magazine, "Si Newhouse was thrilled" with the debut issue. "We still get to have a big budget, and we hear a lot of good things from people in the industry." This same staffer is also less convinced of an imminent staff mutiny. "I think [Lipman] had a very strong view about what the magazine should be that some of the senior editors didn't agree with, and perhaps they were frustrated with what they perceived as a lack of listening, and her handing down directives," this source says. Indeed, another staff member adds, "My sense about these kinds of editors is that they have to have huge egos and be imperious to get over this first part." One of Lipman's two deputy editors, Amy Stevens, is her longtime colleague from the [I]WSJ[/I], where Lipman, Stevens, and Laurie Cohen—who returned to the [I]WSJ[/I] after two months at [I]Portfolio[/I]—were a clique "in a similar way that Jill Abramson, Maureen Dowd, and Alessandra Stanley are a clique at the [I]New York Times[/I]," says one former [I]WSJ[/I] staffer. "I think morale at the magazine in general is good," says another [I]Portfolio[/I] staffer. "That might be because it's a launch, and there's momentum and excitement—but also, everyone's treated well. And there's very little hierarchy. Joanne will make calls, and some senior editors might have had issues, but generally the staff is harmonious." [URL="http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gawker/full?a=PgE1ci"][IMG]http://feeds.gawker.com/~a/gawker/full?i=PgE1ci[/IMG]</img>[/URL] [url=http://gawker.com/news/inside-conde-nast/si-newhouse-reportedly-thrilled-but-portfolio-is-wrong-for-the-audience-269903.php]More...[/url] [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…