Editor-in-chief Dave Zinczenko got busted yesterday for running exactly the same cover, almost word-for-word, as the October 2007 issue. Today he tells the New York Post's Keith Kelly that it was intentional.
Except that we don't understand what he's saying really. First he told Kelly the carbon-copy cover only made it onto newsstands, and that subscribers got a different one. Which makes it sound like a mistake. But then he added:
...it was not inadvertent, and it was part of overall branding strategies that we wouldn't share for magazines, books, international editions, mobile applications or anything else.
Which sounds a bit like something Sarah Palin would say — it has lots of plausible-sounding words in it, and sort-of scans if you read it casually, but actually makes no sense whatsoever. Is he saying this was a deliberate attempt to brand books, international editions etc like a 2007 cover? Or that they have some secret reason that they "wouldn't share"? Get in touch Dave! We'll run a whole new story, with a different headline and everything, featuring your explanation.