• Profile logout login

#fortpolio#discussed

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 6:37 AM
Fri Dec 18
46 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of raincoaster raincoaster
    04/28/09

    In reply to Portfolio, 2007-2009
    I, too, wanted to like it. I LOVED some of the writers, and some of the articles. But I can't forget the Ducati piece, which babbled on and on like some cheap advertorial about a motorcycle which, in the end, it declined to picture, while showcasing several of the older models, badly-photographed. NOT the way to do a sexy piece on sexy machines.


    The editor was either asleep at the wheel or completely incompetent.

     Reply
    raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred
    Image of WaldenChupon WaldenChupon
    04/27/09

    In reply to Portfolio, 2007-2009
    And what's the betting that the Journal's lame ass WSJ is next? From all the protestations from editorial that being perfect bound gave it market differentiation, it only took two issues to send it out saddle stitched (vastly cheaper & the usual recourse when you don't have enough ads to make a proper book).

    Their ads are way down from projection. It's still not a monthly as promised on launch for 09.

    and Gaudoin managed to lose her fashion director and art director by the second issue (apparently due to her 'eccentric' style of editing; rumor has it the Brits weren't sad to send her off across the Atlantic) and there's a persistent rumor that more are itching to get out of there.
     Reply
    WaldenChupon was starred WaldenChupon was unstarred
    Image of Mediahohoho Mediahohoho
    04/27/09

    @WaldenChupon: You left out the beauty mark. Seriously.


    WSJ.

     Reply
    Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred
    Image of microtony microtony
    04/27/09

    In reply to Inside Fort Polio: A Former Staffer on What Went Wrong
    Using the word "insouciance" more than once in an article is unacceptable.
     Reply
    microtony was starred microtony was unstarred
    Image of gawkimo gawkimo
    04/27/09

    @microtony: Use of "the writing had been on the wall" is questionable, too, because it's a hackneyed phrase.


    I read the whole letter and identified with it. But there is a slight amateur quality to the complaints of over-editing and the leader not listening to the bright, young recruits. (Typical complaints.)


    The point about using top names who reserve the good stuff for other mags is a good one.


    The mag was doomed for failure simply because it relied on Journal hot-shots to run a consumer magazine. That and all the other reasons why so many mags are shutting down. It will not be missed because the world lost nothing by its demise.

     Reply
    gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred
    Image of Cheap Shot Cheap Shot
    04/27/09

    In reply to Inside Fort Polio: A Former Staffer on What Went Wrong

     Reply
    Cheap Shot was starred Cheap Shot was unstarred
    Image of iplaudius iplaudius
    04/27/09

    In reply to Inside Fort Polio: A Former Staffer on What Went Wrong
    The dressing down of the empress with no clothes. My question: will she ever work in "this town" again?
     Reply
    iplaudius was starred iplaudius was unstarred
    Image of DennyCrane DennyCrane
    04/27/09

    In reply to Inside Fort Polio: A Former Staffer on What Went Wrong
    Paul, you seem to have the same attitude about the industry as I do. Godspeed.
     Reply
    DennyCrane was starred DennyCrane was unstarred
    Image of Spiers Spiers
    04/27/09

    In reply to Portfolio, 2007-2009
    She did tell me that--just before getting to the Gawker part of my work history. Awk-ward!


    More to the point: I met with the guy who was running the website a few months after they launched to talk about maybe doing a content partnership with Dealbreaker. We were talking about media coverage and I suggested that he hire Bercovici, who was then breaking some good stuff for Radar--which he subsequently did, though probably not at my suggestion. Felix was already there, which was a good sign. He was an appropriate and excellent hire. It had a lot of potential.


    The site editor then mentioned that Joanne wasn't very hands-on, and I heard the same thing from other people later, with suggestions that her disinterest worked to their advantage. But I guess since she wasn't very invested in the website, she didn't think it was important, either.


    What I don't understand, though, is why Conde Nast insists on neglecting the only hedge it has against the decline of print. With the resources they have, they should be making loads of money off the web--and putting the rest of us out of business. I get that they don't necessarily *need* to (i hear you, Peter Feld) but if the opportunity is there, why not take it?

     Reply
    Spiers was starred Spiers was unstarred
    Image of LuigiPashnani LuigiPashnani
    04/27/09

    Hi-

    I can shed a little light here. The reason that Conde, and every other magazine co, are effectively absent from online as a cultural force is that they have a problem accepting the narrow (if any) profit margins that online media businesses return. At this point in time, readers won't pay at all and ad agencies will only pay less than they did last year (per individual).

    As the job of the heads of these companies is to grow profits, not just audience, you really won't see them making the kind of websites that they are capable of until there's real money to be made.

    numberwrangler
     Reply
    LuigiPashnani was starred LuigiPashnani was unstarred
    Image of Peter Feld Peter Feld
    04/27/09

    @LuigiPashnani: That is a good analysis. To be fair to Conde Nast, few if any other print publication companies have really solved the web puzzle. They get too obsessed with making print and web "work together" when they don't, and can't - if there's one clear fact about the web audience, it's that they don't want your magazine, and if there's one clear fact about the print audience it's that they aren't interested in your website. Audiences are more stratified by media habits than they are united by common interests.
     Reply
    Peter Feld was starred Peter Feld was unstarred
    Image of Awesome X Awesome X
    04/27/09

    In reply to Portfolio, 2007-2009
    That's too bad. Portfolio wasn't a bad idea, at least in concept. At least it folded having left behind some high points:


    [www.portfolio.com]

     Reply
    Awesome X was starred Awesome X was unstarred
    Image of Mediahohoho Mediahohoho
    04/27/09

    In reply to Portfolio, 2007-2009
    My sympathies and condolences to the people who put out and marketed a very good magazine. Feels like a punch in the gut.
     Reply
    Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred
    Image of ifstone ifstone
    04/27/09

    @Mediahohoho: You're talking about Portfolio? It was an extremely vacuous bit of fluff.
     Reply
    ifstone was starred ifstone was unstarred
    Image of Mediahohoho Mediahohoho
    04/27/09

    @ifstone: You are assuming, sir, that I am not a vacuous bit of fluff, when clearly I am since I very much enjoy the reporting of Seymour Hersh.
     Reply
    Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred
    Image of StanleyNavision StanleyNavision
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    What does this mean for A.J. Jacobs and his year or working for another magazine project?
     Reply
    StanleyNavision was starred StanleyNavision was unstarred
    Image of gladys_kravitz gladys_kravitz
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    I hope they fire the person responsible for those infernal lists, lists, lists.
     Reply
    gladys_kravitz was starred gladys_kravitz was unstarred
    Image of SultanaEleusis SultanaEleusis
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    Ernest Hemingway is being laid off as a contributor, and henceforth will only be seen in reprint form.
     Reply
    SultanaEleusis was starred SultanaEleusis was unstarred
    Image of Cheap Shot Cheap Shot
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    As a male, I've tried to get into Esquire's editorial content but find it unsatisfying.

    It's also pretty thin compared to GQ.
     Reply
    Cheap Shot was starred Cheap Shot was unstarred
    Image of Beausoleil Beausoleil
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    "Things I've Learned":


    -Publishing jobs are shitty.
    -I should have studied air conditioning repair.
    -No one wants to read about Gore Vidal's lack of sex drive.
    -Scar-jo has a wonderful rack.
    -A man is not complete without 5 $8000 suits.
    -Browns shoes, dude. Brown fucking shoes.
    -Size matters...when it comes to cufflinks!
    -Fiction can not only be bad, it can be reliably worse-than-McSweeney's bad.
    -Reading Esquire on the L train leads everyone to think you're a douchebag.
    -Electronic, E-ink covers, are expensive and may result in the downsizing of employees.
    -Hot girls are HOT!

     Reply
    Beausoleil was starred Beausoleil was unstarred
    Image of Shaken not Stirred Shaken not Stirred
    11/07/08

    In reply to Hearst Layoffs Hit Esquire
    i second saxon's point. noone reads Esquire anymore anyway. the only reason it survives is because Hearst offers free advertising to advertisers who place ads in its other magazines. which creates the impression it is still a healthy magazine and tricks a few other advertisers into actually paying to advertise in Esquire. (mostly foreign advertisers who are mostly clueless.) half the subscription base for Esquire are free (they kept sending it to me and all my friends for free.) the magazine doesn't turn a profit. they just keep it going since the trademark may have some value attached which they could sell later.
     Reply
    Shaken not Stirred was starred Shaken not Stirred was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.