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!

Esquire vs. GQ

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WaylonJennings, Feb 19, 2010.

Page 7 of 8
  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Azrael, Nov 5, 2019
    #73
  2. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    I just visited esquire.com for the first time in ages. The lead piece is this...

    upload_2019-11-5_14-30-25.png

    BTW, I'd forgotten that Charlie Pierce is still covering politics for them. Always like his stuff.
     
    CD Boogie, Nov 5, 2019
    #74
  3. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    That's two new Esquire editors in succession who've taken a shot at brown liquor and/or bourbon upon his arrival. Jesus Christ, people still drink whiskey. No need to apologize for it! It's okay!
     
    typefitter, Nov 5, 2019
    #75
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Distilleries still buy ads, don't they?
     
    Azrael, Nov 6, 2019
    #76
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Azrael, Nov 8, 2019
    #77
  6. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Haven’t read Rolling Stone in awhile. Still a shill mag or does it dare critical reviews of popular music?
     
    Alma, Nov 8, 2019
    #78
  7. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I understand the publishing biz and the need to stave off death but don't understand this kind of 180-degree editorial shift. Maybe it's because I'm a mid-40s white dude. But once you've ditched what worked to go chase something that you think is the right path, lined with new dollars, you're not going to be able to reverse course and go back to the old audience when the new plan turns out to be a dud. Ask NASCAR.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    playthrough, Nov 8, 2019
    #79
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Not asking this to be contrarian. ... Why not?

    Supply doesn't create it's own demand. But demand will usually find a supplier.

    Those magazines are changing because tastes and audiences changed (and probably more than any of this, choice of mediums have changed), not because they had a hankering to ditch something that still worked. If there was suddenly new-found demand for what Esquire or Playboy used to be, why would it be so difficult to reverse course and rebecome those magazines?
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 8, 2019
    #80
  9. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    The article linked said Esquire has a circulation of about 700,000 while GQ's is around 925,000 so they're not exactly at the circulation numbers of the Springfield Morning Wood.
     
    BitterYoungMatador2, Nov 8, 2019
    #81
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Both have seen a pretty rapid decline in subscribers, have seen newsstand sales decline from significant to almost nothing, and they seem to be trying to bolster themselves with more free subscriptions. They have also cut the number of issues the last few years, and ad pages are down. I don't know specifically what the P&L looks like for Hearst and Conde Nast, but I would bet with almost certainty that it isn't very good. These were once cash cows. So much so that they weren't even all that cost conscious in the production. That has really changed.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 8, 2019
    #82
  11. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    There’s more than a little evidence out there that editorial choices - entertainment choices too - are being made for the sake of reflecting progressive values than capturing audiences.

    ESPN consciously hurt their ratings by ripping on the NFL so much it landed them shitty MNF games. Skipper wanted that, though. Grantland was a sinkhole of money. I’m confident the undefeated is, too.
     
    Alma, Nov 8, 2019
    #83
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    What if the lion's share of the audience holds "progressive" values? What decision gets made then?

    Or, what if the lion's share of the audience holds demonstrably reprehensible "values?" How does management handle that?

    Also, The New Yorker lost money for decades. Mountains of it. Losing lots of money isn't the measure of quality.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Azrael, Nov 8, 2019
    #84
    justgladtobehere likes this.
Page 7 of 8
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page