Evening Standard: Not such an Easy Living at Condé Nast
By David Rowan
THEY were the £33 million gambles that rocked the women's magazine market. When Condé Nast launched Easy Living last March, it brashly promised a "revolutionary new concept" that, with £17 million behind it, would "redefine" women's glossies. Two weeks earlier, Emap launched Grazia, its "gorgeous and compelling" fashion-and-celebrity weekly on a slightly lower budget. It, too, would change women's reading habits.
Tomorrow, six months on, their first ABC results will reveal whether the risks have paid off. Circulation numbers will, after intense subscription and advertising campaigns, be sufficiently respectable for both newcomers to claim early success. But within the industry, there is already a widespread view that Condé Nast - publisher of Vogue and Vanity Fair - will have far less justification than Emap for uncorking the champagne.
Although Easy Living will considerably exceed its declared minimum circulation target of 150,000, there is some unease within Condé Nast that the magazine may still not have found its pace. Edited by Susie Forbes, a former deputy editor of Vogue who had previously never run her own title, it aims to "hold a glamorous mirror up to real life" with sections on food, fashion and "emotional intelligence". Yet early issues have left some media buyers and advertisers distinctly unimpressed. Competitors, needless to say, have delighted in the schadenfreude of a rival's perceived vulnerability.
"I don't think they've made any impact at all, certainly not on the newsstand," says Trish Halpin, editor of Red, similarly targeted at women over 30. "It just doesn't look dynamic and exciting." Sue James, editorial director of Woman & Home, believes that Forbes has ignored her instincts in favour of Condé Nast's 12,000-person pre-launch research. "It seems to have been researched to the Nth degree, but you've got to have that vision through the editor who smells her market and connects with readers. For me, there's a question mark over whether that's there."
Off the record, rivals are even more dismissive. "Condé Nast was so arrogant about this £17 million launch that was going to revolutionise the women's market, and it had us quaking in our boots," says the editor of another monthly glossy. "But when I saw the first issue, I skipped round the office with joy. Easy Living's tone is so bland, so patronising, and that has to come from the editor, who sets the emotional connection with readers. That's why people are asking if she is the right person."
Another women's magazine publisher is equally dismissive. "I don't know anyone who spends their time making wrapping paper or who needs to be shown how to crack an egg," she says. "Tell me who this magazine is aimed at."
To make the business plan work, advertisers' views are what count. After six issues, the jury is still out, according to Claudine Collins, press director at MediaCom, which buys advertising space. "It's got better, but I don't think Easy Living really delivered on its promise and launch strategy," she says. "They've done well with their huge subscription drive, but the gift is often worth more than the magazine."
Officially, Condé Nast will say only that it is "very pleased" with Easy Living's performance, dismissing suggestions that the growing daily involvement of Nicholas Coleridge, the company's managing director, reflects a lack of confidence in Forbes. But a rival publisher, on condition of anonymity, claims that Condé Nast is close to panic. "We're hearing from advertisers and journalists everything from the possibility that it may shut down by the end of the year, to plans for an entire revamp, or that the editor will be replaced. There's a considerable backing away from it. The concern is that it's worthy, gloomy, with features about funeral etiquette, and a feeling among advertisers that it's perhaps missed the point of the rather affluent and enjoyable times that we live in."
In the bitchy world of women's glossies, you would expect rivals to be sharpening their stilettos. Forbes, for her part, says she is baffled by suggestions that her job is under threat. "Condé Nast hasn't shared with me if they think I'm not the person to edit Easy Living," she says. "Nor are there plans for a relaunch unless I'm unaware of them."
As for Coleridge's role, he is her "great friend who has been by my side since they asked me to do the job. As a first-time editor, I defer to his experience." Advertising targets have been reached, Forbes insists, Thursday's circulation figures will be "strong and respectable", and reader feedback is "incredible".
"These criticisms may be the industry's views, but they're not the readers'," she says. "And I know whose side I'd rather be on."
The spat, at least, has taken the spotlight off Grazia, whose early issues were widely criticised for their uncertain mix of low-brow celebrity and high fashion. EMAP expects to announce a circulation several per cent above its initial 150,000 target. "We were going into a new market, it was uncharted territory, and all the critics were snapping around us," admits an Emap spokesman. "Now we're very happy that Grazia's got the balance right and has become a hot book for high-end advertising."
This is not immediately apparent from the magazine's own pages, which carry only a handful of premium ads. A recent cover-price rise, too - from £1.70 to £1.90 - looks distinctly like an attempt to recoup revenue at the expense of building circulation. Could the heavy celebrity coverage be putting off the Guccis and Armanis? Not at all, the spokesman replies: the cover-price rise is simply "a sign of absolute confidence we've got a formula that works that readers will buy into even at the extra price", with barely any circulation impact. Advertising, he adds, is seasonal, and will bounce back with the September fashion shows, including three eight-page inserts for Esprit.
But whatever its commercial prospects, Grazia's most remarkable achievement, under editorial chiefs Jane Bruton and Fiona McIntosh, is to have earned the rare praise of rival editors. "It's working," says Red's Trish Halpin. "I had my reservations at first, but it's really tightened up in the last couple of months, and it's now quite an exciting magazine for the bus or coffee break." Sue James, too, is impressed: "Grazia's definitely finding itself a bit more each week. For a quick-flick weekly read, there probably isn't another mag like it."
Tomorrow's circulation results will only begin to determine which of the two newcomers will prove the long-term winner. But six months on, Easy Living's launch certainly isn't proving the industry-shaking "revolution" promised by Condé Nast.
++++
On August 18 2005, Grazia announced an audited circulation of 155,157 (150,900 of them at full cover price), Easy Living 171,038 (156,144 at full rate).
(Evening Standard, August 17 2005)
THEY were the £33 million gambles that rocked the women's magazine market. When Condé Nast launched Easy Living last March, it brashly promised a "revolutionary new concept" that, with £17 million behind it, would "redefine" women's glossies. Two weeks earlier, Emap launched Grazia, its "gorgeous and compelling" fashion-and-celebrity weekly on a slightly lower budget. It, too, would change women's reading habits.
Tomorrow, six months on, their first ABC results will reveal whether the risks have paid off. Circulation numbers will, after intense subscription and advertising campaigns, be sufficiently respectable for both newcomers to claim early success. But within the industry, there is already a widespread view that Condé Nast - publisher of Vogue and Vanity Fair - will have far less justification than Emap for uncorking the champagne.
Although Easy Living will considerably exceed its declared minimum circulation target of 150,000, there is some unease within Condé Nast that the magazine may still not have found its pace. Edited by Susie Forbes, a former deputy editor of Vogue who had previously never run her own title, it aims to "hold a glamorous mirror up to real life" with sections on food, fashion and "emotional intelligence". Yet early issues have left some media buyers and advertisers distinctly unimpressed. Competitors, needless to say, have delighted in the schadenfreude of a rival's perceived vulnerability.
"I don't think they've made any impact at all, certainly not on the newsstand," says Trish Halpin, editor of Red, similarly targeted at women over 30. "It just doesn't look dynamic and exciting." Sue James, editorial director of Woman & Home, believes that Forbes has ignored her instincts in favour of Condé Nast's 12,000-person pre-launch research. "It seems to have been researched to the Nth degree, but you've got to have that vision through the editor who smells her market and connects with readers. For me, there's a question mark over whether that's there."
Off the record, rivals are even more dismissive. "Condé Nast was so arrogant about this £17 million launch that was going to revolutionise the women's market, and it had us quaking in our boots," says the editor of another monthly glossy. "But when I saw the first issue, I skipped round the office with joy. Easy Living's tone is so bland, so patronising, and that has to come from the editor, who sets the emotional connection with readers. That's why people are asking if she is the right person."
Another women's magazine publisher is equally dismissive. "I don't know anyone who spends their time making wrapping paper or who needs to be shown how to crack an egg," she says. "Tell me who this magazine is aimed at."
To make the business plan work, advertisers' views are what count. After six issues, the jury is still out, according to Claudine Collins, press director at MediaCom, which buys advertising space. "It's got better, but I don't think Easy Living really delivered on its promise and launch strategy," she says. "They've done well with their huge subscription drive, but the gift is often worth more than the magazine."
Officially, Condé Nast will say only that it is "very pleased" with Easy Living's performance, dismissing suggestions that the growing daily involvement of Nicholas Coleridge, the company's managing director, reflects a lack of confidence in Forbes. But a rival publisher, on condition of anonymity, claims that Condé Nast is close to panic. "We're hearing from advertisers and journalists everything from the possibility that it may shut down by the end of the year, to plans for an entire revamp, or that the editor will be replaced. There's a considerable backing away from it. The concern is that it's worthy, gloomy, with features about funeral etiquette, and a feeling among advertisers that it's perhaps missed the point of the rather affluent and enjoyable times that we live in."
In the bitchy world of women's glossies, you would expect rivals to be sharpening their stilettos. Forbes, for her part, says she is baffled by suggestions that her job is under threat. "Condé Nast hasn't shared with me if they think I'm not the person to edit Easy Living," she says. "Nor are there plans for a relaunch unless I'm unaware of them."
As for Coleridge's role, he is her "great friend who has been by my side since they asked me to do the job. As a first-time editor, I defer to his experience." Advertising targets have been reached, Forbes insists, Thursday's circulation figures will be "strong and respectable", and reader feedback is "incredible".
"These criticisms may be the industry's views, but they're not the readers'," she says. "And I know whose side I'd rather be on."
The spat, at least, has taken the spotlight off Grazia, whose early issues were widely criticised for their uncertain mix of low-brow celebrity and high fashion. EMAP expects to announce a circulation several per cent above its initial 150,000 target. "We were going into a new market, it was uncharted territory, and all the critics were snapping around us," admits an Emap spokesman. "Now we're very happy that Grazia's got the balance right and has become a hot book for high-end advertising."
This is not immediately apparent from the magazine's own pages, which carry only a handful of premium ads. A recent cover-price rise, too - from £1.70 to £1.90 - looks distinctly like an attempt to recoup revenue at the expense of building circulation. Could the heavy celebrity coverage be putting off the Guccis and Armanis? Not at all, the spokesman replies: the cover-price rise is simply "a sign of absolute confidence we've got a formula that works that readers will buy into even at the extra price", with barely any circulation impact. Advertising, he adds, is seasonal, and will bounce back with the September fashion shows, including three eight-page inserts for Esprit.
But whatever its commercial prospects, Grazia's most remarkable achievement, under editorial chiefs Jane Bruton and Fiona McIntosh, is to have earned the rare praise of rival editors. "It's working," says Red's Trish Halpin. "I had my reservations at first, but it's really tightened up in the last couple of months, and it's now quite an exciting magazine for the bus or coffee break." Sue James, too, is impressed: "Grazia's definitely finding itself a bit more each week. For a quick-flick weekly read, there probably isn't another mag like it."
Tomorrow's circulation results will only begin to determine which of the two newcomers will prove the long-term winner. But six months on, Easy Living's launch certainly isn't proving the industry-shaking "revolution" promised by Condé Nast.
++++
On August 18 2005, Grazia announced an audited circulation of 155,157 (150,900 of them at full cover price), Easy Living 171,038 (156,144 at full rate).
(Evening Standard, August 17 2005)
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, August 17, 2005
<< Home