1dfc/1233598166-new-yorker-twin-towers.jpgI was ill this weekend and spent most of my time watching awful movies (well, Species actually isn’t that bad). But in one of my brief, online moments, I encountered this Gawker story from Friday and wanted to point it out on Slog.

Basically, The New Yorker was only 82 pages this week, and barely 10 pages of that are ads. This is not a sustainable model for a glossy magazine. Today, Gawker follows that story up with a roundup of all the horrible things that are going on at Conde Nast.

At the New Yorker—Conde’s best magazine and one of its worst at pulling in ads, currently—millionaire editor David Remnick and his reporters were staying with friends in DC for the inauguration, rather than hotels. To save money, like normals! (They’re also extending the New Yorker Festival to ten days this year, which should bring in some extra cash).

That’s kind of nice and inspiring. Less inspiring is Vanity Fair, which is actually re-using a 2007 Obama cover photo for its latest cover. That is just incredibly cheap, for one of America’s most prestigious magazines. Yea, they surely had access issues. But come on.

Everybody’s watching the newspapers, but things are not looking good for the glossies, either.

16 replies on “Over the Weekend”

  3. You would think Vanity Fair would use an alternate shot from the same photo shoot. I don’t read it because I refuse to read a magazine that has 20+ ads before the table of contents.

  4. If you can get your hands on a real, paper copy of yesterday’s NYT, they had a really interesting graph charting the revenues of all American magazines over the past couple years. With very few exceptions (Oprah’s magazine, Rachel Ray’s magazine), everything took a nosedive.

    And BTW, Species sucks. Hot babe, though.

  5. Do you think they make their money on subscriptions?
    Gosh, I thought you all were more savvy than that.
    You DO know they sell the NewYorker for 12 dollars a year, right?
    But, just wait!
    You will receive EVERY snail mail junk mail advertising blast from every liberal cause under the sun within 2 months of signing up.

    I challenge anyone to find out how much they make selling their subscription data bases.
    I am guessing it’s WAY more than the subscription fees.

    those fuckers, I’d rather pay the “real” price and not have to throw away all that shit in my mailbox.

  7. COMMENT DELETED: Sock-Puppetry
    We’d rather not moderate your comments, but off-topic, gratuitously inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate remarks may be removed, and repeat offenders may be banned from commenting. We never censor comments based on ideology. Thanks to all who add to the conversation on Slog.

  10. I pay about $37 a year for my sub to The New Yorker and I do not get tons of junk mail becouse of it.

    I would be very sad if they died.

  11. @9,10
    Well, i don’t know what to tell ya.
    Sorry you’re paying so much.
    They are slumming and now it’s 12 bucks per year.
    Almost all Conde pups are seriously discounted these days.
    although, I have pointed out the “real” cost of the cheap sub.

  12. just get one of the pull out cards that fall out of any New Yorker and subscribe for less – get a 2 year sub, it’s worth it.

    Except for the movie reviews from that L.A. guy – they suck big time.

  13. Except for the vary rare article I’ve wanted to read, the only times I read the New Yorker is when I fantasize about living there and read the restaurant reviews or see what’s happening at The Village Vanguard.

  14. I just got a two year subscription for $45. Reading this I almost feel guilty…

    In my view, everything has gone downhill since the cartoon caption contest.

  15. I love the New Yorker. Overall, it’s one of the best magazines out there. I subscribe faithfully. Other than that, what else can be done to help them?!?

  16. One of the very rare occasions where I completely agree with Will in Seattle. David Denby and Anthony Lane both suck as movie reviewers.

Comments are closed.