What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Oct. 5 2009 - 4:20 pm | 71 views | 2 recommendations | 8 comments

Late Stage Empire: How Condé Nast could’ve saved Gourmet magazine, and why it chose not to

Vespasian commissioned the Colosseum in Rome.

Image via Wikipedia

What’s been lost so far in the analysis of the carnage at the luxe magazine publishing dinosaur that is Advance Publications’ Condé Nast is that the decision to close Gourmet is not shocking at all. While at first glance the closure looks like another harbinger of the end of publishing’s golden age, the truth is, it’s really the latest manifestation of the company’s feral instincts, which lead it to kill or ignore what it doesn’t understand. Make no mistake, if Condé Nast as a whole were to go down, the remaining editors and publishers will go down like 1st class on the Titanic– Champagne flutes in hand, grabbing chunks of the iceberg off the deck, the better to cool their drinks with. This is not an abadonment of the values that made Condé the mothership of class and sophistication. This is a retrenchment. This is Condé Nast looking at Gourmet’s books and saying, this business doesn’t work, but we don’t know how to fix it, so we’ll close it instead. And ultimately that’s why Condé Nast is shriking, and will continue to shrink as long as this management strategy prevails. Let me explain:

Retrenching is why CEO Chuck Townsend said this in his email to staff on the closings: “Gourmet magazine will cease monthly publication, but we will remain committed to the brand, retaining Gourmet’s book publishing and television programming, and Gourmet recipes on Epicurious.com.” What loyalty will readers have to a book imprint, TV show or co-branded website for a magazine that doesn’t exist? It’s a slow fade into irrelevance for everything that made Gourmet great. If Condé was serious about reinvention, Townsend’s statement might’ve read something like this:

Gourmet magazine will cease monthly publication, but we will remain committed to the brand. Gourmet.com will relaunch next week under Editor Ruth Reichl. The new website will offer a host of innovative ways to connect readers to Gourmet’s staff. The test kitchens will soon boast webcams and interactive recipe testing, encouraging readers to trade comments and ideas with test-chefs working on each week’s new recipes. Gourmet will also roll out a new standardized recipe data format, which will allow readers to suggest alternative ingredients for taste, or to create versions that are diabetes, celiac, low-fat, low cholesterol, organic, locavore or vegan friendly. Soon all of Gourmet’s archived recipes will be reformatted into this Master Recipe format, giving readers an entirely new way to cook and shop. Additionally, the magazine will publish twice yearly supplemental issues: Gourmet Holidays, focused on the time of the year when food and family gatherings are at the forefront of our minds, and Gourmet Summer, an issue pertaining to the bounties and pleasures of high season cuisine. Podcasts and collaborations with leading social networks, featuring reader photos and recipes, will round out the relaunch. As we re-imagine the epicurean magazine, we expect to make more announcements of special issues and new website features in the future.

Thing is, while a site like that would be a food lover’s dream, it would, at least initially, cost money to develop and staff. And with greatly reduced advertising income. Which makes the idea a non-starter. As I learned while working there, the prevailing thinking among Condé Nast executives is that no website, no matter how successful, no matter how well trafficked, will ever provide the revenue stream or Return on Investment that Condé Nast expects from successful magazines. As Townsend told the Times, they expect a 25% net profit margin from their magazines. I think Townsend would be better off in the oil business if that’s what he thinks is realistic, but hey, go for it.

Thing is, that profit expectation is the subtext for the decision to axe Gourmet (and consolidate all the Bridal titles into one monster magazine, the day’s other major news.) Condé doesn’t know how to cultivate niche audiences into profitable markets. For instance, tech podcaster Leo Laporte, once a niche tv host on cable channel G4, is now making $1.5 million annually as a podcaster with his This Week in Technology brand, staff of seven. The company costs $350,000 to run right now, and annual revenues have been doubling. That means three years ago TWiT was making less than $200,000.

The idea of Condé Nast starting a business with that kind of revenue projection these days is totally laughable, unless of course it’s got a burn rate several orders of magnitude larger than its cash flow, and a full-fledged ego-tripper at the helm. The company could fund fifty Leo Laportes, and if it hits onto five ideas with growth prospects of TWiT, it would come out ahead by any measure. But it’s aversion to take on that kind of work and attitude is exactly the symptom of the late-stage empire which Condé Nast now is: The company has no ability, anywhere in the organization, to see the value of starting small, trying new things, or offering sustained commitments or investments, on a small scale, to grow a new business or brand.  It’s a risk averse, fear driven culture that can’t defend or comprehend investing in things that don’t already feature the company’s commitment to excess and luxury. But excess and luxury are two concepts that are completely poisonous to the values needed to grow a new business from scratch. This, then, is Condé’s slow death: unwilling to change, unable to grow, it will prune itself until there is nothing left, even as the branches it left for dead grow into a verdant new forest of green and Green.

Historians often date the start of the decline of the Roman Empire to Hadrian’s Wall in England, beyond which barbarous Scottish warriors lay. Rather than fight them, the Empire chose to block them out, to pretend, basically, that they didn’t exist. It was the first time in the history of Rome that its leadership willingly ceded the chance to expand and take more territory, to refuse to make the investment of coin and solider and prestige needed to keep growing to the natural borders of the ocean, where, had it gone, it might’ve found not just the Irish and the Vikings, but, in time, the New World. Giving back the devoted and evangelistic readership of Gourmet, as Condé Nast has already done with Domino and other titles, is the wall around the Condé Nast Empire that will keep the barbarians, and everyone else, out. And keep itself in.


Comments

2 T/S Member Comments Called Out, 8 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    I spent the weekend clipping, then tossing, my old copies of Domino. I plan to keep my copies of Gourmet. I now feel like an official dinosaur remembering all my favorite magazines, the ones I read and the ones I wrote for.

    The profit margins expected in publishing are, literally, laughable to almost any other industry, some of whom are happy with 5 percent — and still manage to run a profitable business.

    Guess it depends how you define “profitable.”

  2. collapse expand

    Paul, I like this re-launched Gourmet of which you write ;)

  3. collapse expand

    as I wrote on my facebook wall, “In my book, anyone who’s able to convinctingly relate the closure of Gourmet Magazine to the start of the decline of the Roman Empire to Hadrian’s Wall in England is worth a read.” A better (or, one) pic might be a good idea … your reinvention of Gourmet scenario is so spot-on – informed, concise, executable – and the reason why it would never happen, depressing. No investment in Conde Nast watching but what you describe, I believe, is indicative of a larger resistance to (ignorance =’s fear) to leveraging physical properties with the web. The ignorance part is important: although I don’t have this resistance, until people start putting forth solutions, I think we’ll see these ongoing dinosaur-caught-in-tar scenarios. Versions of this could be applied to the car industry, to the fashion industry, the steel industry … etc. There is one point where I do agree with Townsend: he’s very clear about putting forth publications that achieve a traditional notion of economy of scale, for which the American economy – despite its fragmentation – is known for and defined by. It seems like your ideal Conde scenario – invest in a ton of websites & see what succeeds – is economy of scale vis aggregate? Parenthetically, what do you think of the Daily Beast?

  4. collapse expand

    Impassioned and detailed. Impressive! If blistering. Thanks.

  5. collapse expand

    Love your description of the new Gourmet.com. Can’t wait until someone has the brains to launch it.

  6. collapse expand

    Ugh, please people, if you’re going to make “decline of Rome” analogies, make them TRUE. For instance, this:

    “It was the first time in the history of Rome that its leadership willingly ceded the chance to expand and take more territory, to refuse to make the investment of coin and solider and prestige needed to keep growing to the natural borders of the ocean…”

    Is not true on a number of levels, the most obvious of which is that the Romans had tried and failed to push their frontier in Europe to the Elbe more than 100 years earlier. And of course there is the troubling notion that Hadrian’s Wall represented the beginning of the end of Rome, when in fact the Empire would tool along in the West for another 300+ years after it was built.

    The boring truth is that the borders of the Roman Empire at its height almost everywhere corresponded more or less to the frontiers of the land on which agriculture was possible during that era. (The exception was in the east, where the border was with another organized empire, not random barbarians.) The Romans were good at controlling and taxing settled communities and farmers, and not good at controlling and taxing nomads and semi-nomads. They tried to get around this in Scotland because they thought, hey, this place is an island, would it be that hard to conquer even the nomad-y bits? Turned out it was — they sent armies up there but there was no towns or kingdoms or whatever that they could “conquer” in the sense that they were used to conquering people — so they figured, hey, you know, this border is actually pretty short, how ’bout we just build a wall instead.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm here to participate in an experiment. I live professionally by two maxims:

    "Bad manners make a journalist." -Oscar Wilde

    "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible." -Janet Malcolm.

    Email me or @smalera

    See my profile »
    Followers: 45
    Contributor Since: April 2009
    Location:Brooklyn, NY

    What I'm Up To

    I’m a regular over at

    The Big Money

    the business and economics website from Slate.com.