Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:47 PM
Sun Nov 15
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/28/09
The editor was either asleep at the wheel or completely incompetent.
04/27/09
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.
04/27/09
WSJ.
04/27/09
04/27/09
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.
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
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?
04/27/09
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
04/27/09
04/27/09
[www.portfolio.com]
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
11/07/08
11/07/08
It's also pretty thin compared to GQ.
11/07/08
11/07/08
11/07/08
11/07/08
11/07/08
Business as usual.
11/07/08
11/07/08
11/07/08
11/07/08
...and they say romance is dead.
11/07/08
11/07/08