Magazines

Playing Quarters at Condé

condenastcafeteria.jpgA quarter. 25%. That’s the big budget cut number supposedly hanging over the heads of editors and publishers at 4 Times Square, according to an article today in The New York Observer. That’s a mighty chunk, huge even.

“There will be significant layoffs. Significant,” said one company source in the story. Well, yeah, I’d think so. And I hate that people are going to lose their jobs, but I think that some of the bloated mastheads at magazines like, ahem Glamour, are easily the first place one looks when making cuts. This is the kind of economic climate where a 23 person fashion department really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. According to the Observer, the entire editorial staff of Details is only 35 people.

Apparently no mandates have been given as to how to make the cuts, just baseline budget numbers that must be met. CEO Chuck Townsend said, “I can boil what I say to editors and publishers down to the simplest statement in the world and that is: You, not me, you have a responsibility to run this business in a responsible way. It’s your responsibility. I want to see your proposal of how you’re going to do it.” We can’t wait to see what Anna, Graydon, Amy, and the rest come up with. Though I certainly don’t envy any of them the next few weeks.

Car service was cut for many during NYFW, and we’ve all read about shifts in who’s covering Europe. But what’s next? I would think shoot budgets, parties/events, and general travel cuts would be obvious choices. And some books will surely be reducing frequency of publication. Where would you start if you were charge?

One thing’s for sure: it’s going to be a whole new world for the Condé kids come October and beyond.

Comments

1

posted by Belle de Jour

Sep 23, 2009 2:32PM

23 people in Glamour's fashion department is a tad bit excessive. Cutting parties makes a lot of sense, as well as creating cheaper fashion shoots. Lucky has a photo studio on their floor; maybe other mags should think of installing the same. No need to shoot in Antartica - no one really cares. Just show us the clothes baby!

avatar
2

posted by Andrea

Sep 23, 2009 3:37PM

Having been through a ton of downsizing these cuts in fringe benefits aren't going to do it. They're going to cut people to not only reduce the wages paid out but the benefits to the govt. I don't think people realize how much companies pay for full-time employee benefits. 7% of the salary goes to the govt for SS and Medicare and upwards of $500-$1000 per month for health care. That adds up, and when cut frees up a significant amount of money. Sucks b/c now i'll never work for Conde Nast.

avatar
3

posted by guest

Sep 23, 2009 3:56PM

No more spoiled children sending "badass" town cars for Powerball tickets, ay? My hear simply weeps for them. :p

avatar
4

posted by guest

Sep 23, 2009 4:01PM

LOL, that should be "heart"

And I should say: I do have genuine sympathy for people losing their jobs. But running a tighter ship is plain smart, and usually creates better work too.

avatar
5

posted by c

Sep 23, 2009 7:12PM

so because glamour's fashion department is a little bigger than other magazines', they should lose their jobs..? i don't get it.

avatar
6

posted by isnotfashion

Sep 23, 2009 7:51PM

c-
if glamour's fashion department is larger than other mags they are doing the same thing as other mags but cost more. to become more efficient and competitive doing the same for less makes more business sense.

avatar
7

posted by guest

Sep 23, 2009 8:13PM

I feel for anyone who loses their job, but Glamour was never my cup of tea. So pedestrian.

8

posted by DistrictL

Sep 23, 2009 8:46PM

I agree, #7.

avatar
9

posted by guest

Sep 24, 2009 10:35AM

conde should just get rid of the redundancy in its lineup. there's no reason for brides, modern bride and elegant bride to exist simultaneously. golf digest and gold world? pick one. same with gourmet and bon appetit. I think they could also get rid of either glamour or lucky, but I guess they have (marginally) different purposes.

as for details and gq...similar, but details is the conde nast's clever little closet case and in my opinion is just too good to let go.

avatar
10

posted by guest

Sep 24, 2009 11:14AM

Maybe they should cut things like Anna's clothing allowance, gasp.

11

posted by FierceObjection

Sep 24, 2009 11:50AM

I will never understand how Glamour has survived the way it has for so long. Conde Nast has brought in some hardcore heavyweights who are all dollar signs and could give a toot about fashion. It's going to be a brand new look over there really soon.
http://fierceobjection.wordpress.com

Post Your Comment