1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RIP Glamour Magazine

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by MTM, Nov 20, 2018.

Page 1 of 2
  1. MTM

    MTM Well-Known Member

    MTM, Nov 20, 2018
    #1
    garrow, Cosmo, Vombatus and 1 other person like this.
  2. Vombatus

    Vombatus Well-Known Member

    Vombatus, Nov 21, 2018
    #2
  3. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    Why is it glamour and not glamor? Why the "u" exception?
     
    typefitter, Nov 21, 2018
    #3
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'd guess it has to do with how the word was used in the 1930s, when the magazine was founded. There was a Hollywood glamour culture at the time, I think.

    This was an 80-year-old magazine. As someone who once really loved magazines, just everything about them from the business, production, printing to the unique editorial voices each had, and then had to get used to their inevitable death. ... this news made me sigh. It's not so much that I loved Glamour magazine back in the day, obviously. But this is an 80-year-old institution that died. It's basically the story of magazines overall.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 21, 2018
    #4
    Batman likes this.
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    No idea.

    But as is the case with most great things, it comes to us from Scotland. And meant "to cast a spell."

    And even having known this was coming, it's still a sad moment in the glossy magazine business.
     
    Azrael, Nov 21, 2018
    #5
  6. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    Yeah, they're in trouble, for the most part. The ones that aren't—The Atlantic, The New Yorker—are so high-brow, they're almost niche. Luxury news vehicles, essentially.
     
    typefitter, Nov 21, 2018
    #6
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't know enough about The Atlantic. But what the New Yorker has done the last few years is extraordinary. Similar to the small handful of nationally-focused newspapers that have really done well, the New Yorker blew its paid circulation through the roof. It was essentially a Trump bump (not to make this into a political conversation, though, it's just what happened and what the New Yorker has benefited from). So unlike the traditional magazine model, it doesn't have to worry as much about the ups and downs of advertising revenue. I believe it is bringing in more revenue from subs than it is from advertising now. And subscriptions to the magazine aren't cheap or heavily discounted to try to juice the circulation numbers for ad purposes, so they bring in enough revenue to offset whatever cost there is to bring in new subscribers and retain old ones. Although I think their re-up rates are crazy good. Always have been. They don't need to spend as much for subscribers as a lot of magazines traditionally did.

    It's the same story as it is with anything. You need demand for something to make a business out of it. And in this case, content is really king, because the New Yorker is so damned good and is feeding a need right now for a segment of people, that there is a million plus people out there making it thrive. Unfortunately, most magazines stopped attracting that kind of demand when other things started providing what they did via other mediums.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 21, 2018
    #7
  8. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    Right. I think the problem comes when you seek to be a "pleasant distraction," which is what a lot of magazines were and are. They were a way to pass time on the plane. There are easier, cheaper ways to be distracted anymore, and it's hard to compete with iPads and the Internet. You have to strive to make your magazine an "essential part of intellectual life." Because that, you can't get so easily anywhere else. If a certain segment of people sees you as essential, then you're golden. The Wall Street Journal. The Times and The Post. The Economist. The Atlantic. The New Yorker. It's something the people who cut the shit out of newspapers never seemed to grasp. Wire copy delivered inefficiently? Who's going to buy that?
     
    typefitter, Nov 21, 2018
    #8
    Slacker likes this.
  9. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    Our family has ties to Glamour magazine, and there is someone who really will be devastated by this. My mother's cousin's wife was the managing editor of the magazine for many years. They still live in the heart of New York City proper, and I'm sure she's feeling this.
     
    WriteThinking, Nov 21, 2018
    #9
  10. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    You're alluding to golf, right?

    "I whack a ball, it goes in a gopher hole!"

     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
    Slacker, Nov 21, 2018
    #10
    ChrisLong likes this.
  11. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member

    The thing of it is that the magazine has a 2.2 million circulation (or at least that's what the articles I've read said.)What are the economics of switching to a free web-site? Does that really make them more profit?
     
    britwrit, Nov 21, 2018
    #11
  12. PaperDoll

    PaperDoll Well-Known Member

    I've been a Glamour subscriber for a while, and was an admirer of former editor Ruth Whitney. Glamour used to delve into politics and investigations, far beyond the stereotypical women's magazine.

    But it's slid the other way, particularly with the most recent masthead change.

    I haven't gotten any communication regarding the status of my subscription. If there's no print product, I plan to ask for a refund for the remainder of the term.
     
    PaperDoll, Nov 22, 2018
    #12
Page 1 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page