magazines, ; - Gawker

posts about #magazines more →
Martha Stewart Caught in Bed With Big Government
Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
Time Inc's Pre-Thanksgiving Layoffs
Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
Carl Kasell Escapes NPR News Gig Alive
Four Ways Listicles Make Us Immortal, According to Umberto Eco
German Newspaper Feud Gets Penis-y
BusinessWeek Layoffs Make Fools of Optimists
The Vice Guide to Creating a Successful Publishing Empire
Rumors: Staff Shuffles at New York Post, Sports Illustrated

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 ×

sweetpickles
11/25/09

In reply to Martha Stewart Caught in Bed With Big Government
Do magazines think people want to wait for their regurgitated content on a monthly basis again? No. They do not. Silly magazines. You're going to have to offer people subscriptions to a bunch of your sites. And not .pdfs.
Reply

sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred

momof3wildkids
11/25/09

In reply to Martha Stewart Caught in Bed With Big Government
From the looks of the picture, Martha Stewart is in bed with something other than the State Dept.

With that stick, it is no wonder she doesn't need a man.
Reply

momof3wildkids was starred momof3wildkids was unstarred

hannapdx
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
Oh no! I'm getting married in 2011, how will I ever know how to plan my own wedding without the help of overpriced wedding mags?!!!
Reply

hannapdx was starred hannapdx was unstarred

Perhaps Not
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
In a related story, jeepers h. christmas Christina Hendricks is so unbelievably hot I'm afraid my monitor is going to melt and fuse with me desk.
Reply

Perhaps Not was starred Perhaps Not was unstarred

manchops
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
more and more reasons to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE!
I mean, seriously! Start submitting the mag titles now, this could SAVE the whole industry!
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

rmric0.wedding.photographer.and.manny
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
I really don't understand how you couldn't make money on a bridal magazine. Your readers only get them for a year (unless they've gone way overboard) and then you can start recycling content (with some new pictures and up to date references). The only work to be done is selling ad space.
Reply

manchops
11/24/09

@rmric0.wedding.photographer.and.manny: because the demo is so directly targeted (as in: I just got proposed to! I need to plan a huge wedding! Where do I start? What do I do?) the advertising in these mags was huge! and at top rates. Sorta like a mag for people who just won a million dollars and had never heard of a retail store.
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

ArtfulSlinger
11/24/09

@manchops: Shouldn't then the magazine just become more targeted in region? So the ads could coordinate with the content, like New York Mag. You do a few editions, have local affiliates, etc.

Im here all week Time Inc, whatever you need from me.
Reply

ArtfulSlinger was starred ArtfulSlinger was unstarred

manchops
11/24/09

@ArtfulSlinger: You're right, and that's probably what's happening. Local mags and newspapers always do special wedding supplements and are teaming with all those tuxedo rental, caterer kinda ads. Face it, the big glossy wedding mags were basic nuptial porn. Hard to afford these days...
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

ArtfulSlinger
11/24/09

@manchops: Not only that not at all helpful compared to the blogs. There are hundreds of blogs just focused on printed collateral, let alone dresses, decor, rings, etc.
Reply

ArtfulSlinger was starred ArtfulSlinger was unstarred

manchops
11/24/09

@ArtfulSlinger: basically the demo got younger, like all the demos, and use the internet. I've been in magazines for a dozen years and could never believe how they just sat back and let this happen.
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

sweetpickles
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc. Folding InStyle Weddings
Another piece of the straight marriage industrial complex's soul: ripped to shreds! Now our lady partners will have to consult gay blogs to see which napkins are hot this season.
Reply

sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred

TheBusinessGuy
11/24/09

In reply to Time Inc's Pre-Thanksgiving Layoffs
Naturally the horrible murders in the Philippines dwarfs anything else in this post--the enormity of the evil is staggering. But to deal with what my mind can wrap itself around, does anyone else remember when companies--even magazine companies--had sufficient humanity to wait until after the holidays to do layoffs? Now the objective is just to get 'em off the expense side before the new budget kicks in. I always wonder how the executioner executives can watch or read A Christmas Carol unironically.
Reply

TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

Pesti-Esti
11/24/09

@TheBusinessGuy: I would argue that it is still before the holidays. After what date would you no longer lay people off? November 1? Labor Day? Yeah, laying someone off on December 15 is kinda prickish, but lets get a handle on extending the holidays t0 over 15% of the year.

On the bright side, at least they were laid off before they did their shopping. In a way, it's probably better than being laid off on January 10. Not that being laid off anytime doesn't suck.
Reply

TheBusinessGuy promoted this comment Pesti-Esti was starred Pesti-Esti was unstarred

TheBusinessGuy
11/24/09

@Pesti-Esti: I think laying someone off two days before Thanksgiving is dickish. What should be the cutoff? In the old days, it was usually November 1.

#tips
Reply

TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

Mediahohoho
11/24/09

@TheBusinessGuy: Fortune laid me off a couple of weeks before my wife gave birth, so I wouldn't go looking for a lot of humanity there.
Reply

Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred

If_I_Had_a_Poodle
11/24/09

@TheBusinessGuy: +1111111111111
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred

If_I_Had_a_Poodle
11/24/09

@Mediahohoho: Sadz
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred

TheBusinessGuy
11/24/09

@Mediahohoho: Yeah, that is awful. Anytime a company refers to its employees as "our family," I reach for my pistol.

#tips
Reply

TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

Wrapitup
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
God, such bad decisions. Tara Reid?? Why? How many men are still interested in wanking off to her as opposed to being curious about what a nude body looks like with bad scarring from some shitty plastic surgeon/butcher's work ?

And Jimmy Jellinek?? Really?? They hired the EIC of Maxim which represents everything Playboy stands against. Why? Simply because there's semi-nekkid chix in Maxim so that should, uh, translate well to this other nudie mag ova here, right bro? This was a seriously bad move. Jimmy Jellinek belongs on Askmen.com, an unfunny, dull, boring online shithole for stupid men who think they're badasses for making a rape joke or saying "I'd tap that ass so hard." about some unfortunate starlet. If Playboy really wanted to be taken seriously as a mag for fairly smart guys who like a little T&A with their music critiques and their pro-marijuana legal analyses, they should have hired someone from the New Yorker. If you don't understand your own brand, how can you expect the market to do so?
Reply

Wrapitup was starred Wrapitup was unstarred

AzureTexan
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
Tara Reid: Will Pose For Gin
Reply

AzureTexan was starred AzureTexan was unstarred

Perhaps Not
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
...which is a little sad, since this last issue of Playboy may be the best one I've seen from them. Pretty girls, new fiction by Nabokov, and full-page cartoons by Gahan Wilson, which is something no other magazine does anymore (granted, not all the cartoons are great). It's a cliche to say that you read that magazine "for the articles," but honestly, that's kind of the only reason left now that you can see as much nudity as you want on the internet.
Reply

Perhaps Not was starred Perhaps Not was unstarred

Wrapitup
11/24/09

@Perhaps Not: Ohhh, this is like the prolonged last hurrah of an aging drag queen. Every time you think it's finally over, she comes back with yet another surprise, something fresh and innovative, something intelligent and poignant all at once. Only it doesn't last. I remember when they had a great pictorial of Shannen Doherty with some beautiful underwater shots that were nothing sort of poetic. I thought they had finally rid themselves of the Steven Wayda school of cheap, gaudy, fuschia-lit, 80s-rut lechy cheese. But no. They similarly disappointed with their fiction after the Guts high point from Chuck Palahniuk. Yeah, this is sad.
Reply

Wrapitup was starred Wrapitup was unstarred

Perhaps Not
11/24/09

@Wrapitup: Drag queens and Playboy in the same comment? I salute you, sir. Yeah, it really is like that, though. This month it's Nabokov's final novella with Sasha Grey as Lolita and a fantastic art photo spread in which the girls actually look like they're having fun; next month it's Tara Reid, an interview with Puff Daddy, and a pictorial history of the bunny outfit. If you want to know what's wrong with the magazine, look at any of their centerfold spreads. There's a fine line between "Wow, nobody has skin like that!" and "Seriously, dude, nobody has skin like that."
Reply

Perhaps Not was starred Perhaps Not was unstarred

Wrapitup
11/24/09

@Perhaps Not: Thank you, I appreciate it. Everything you said is true except for the fact that I am female. And your last sentence needs to be engraved on the walls of digital artists everywhere.
Reply

Wrapitup was starred Wrapitup was unstarred

Perhaps Not
11/24/09

@Wrapitup: Ha! I beg your pardon. Shows what happens when you assume (Don King threw me off). And thank you for the compliment.
Reply

Edited by Perhaps Not at 11/24/09 9:52 PM Perhaps Not was starred Perhaps Not was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
Oh boy. Frankenboobies.
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

mladen
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
Penthouse to counter with the Hipster Grifter.

Thank Gawd (to use Flyntian orthography) that Hustler is "above" all that.
Reply

mladen was starred mladen was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/24/09

@mladen: she's nothin' special, but i'd rather see her naked than tara reid.
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

johnny_carsick
11/24/09

@lostarchitect: At this point, is there anybody who hasn't already seen Tara Reid naked?
Reply

johnny_carsick was starred johnny_carsick was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/24/09

@johnny_carsick: Good point, but I'm trying to save the eyes of anyone who's left.
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

johnny_carsick
11/24/09

@lostarchitect: NO! NO! NOT THE REID! AHH! MY EYES! OH, SHE'S IN MY EYES! MY EYES!!!!!!!!!"
Reply

Edited by johnny_carsick at 11/24/09 1:15 PM johnny_carsick was starred johnny_carsick was unstarred

CumaeanSibyl
11/24/09

@johnny_carsick: THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING

/someone had to
Reply

Edited by CumaeanSibyl at 11/24/09 4:03 PM CumaeanSibyl was starred CumaeanSibyl was unstarred

DahlELama
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
What is the going rate for full-frontal surgery scars these days? A box of wine and a carton of Marlboro Reds?
Reply

DahlELama was starred DahlELama was unstarred

DennyCrane
11/24/09

In reply to Playboy Now Able to Afford Tara Reid
vom!!!
Reply

DennyCrane was starred DennyCrane was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment