Esquire vs. GQ

[Azrael]

This addresses some of what we're talking about here.

As Men Are Canceled, So Too Their Magazine Subscriptions

 

[CD Boogie]

The last big splash from either was the Dylann Roof piece in GQ. But that was under Nelson. Will Welch seems much more interested in fashion qua fashion. There's nothing wrong with that, it's always paid the bills, but I expect to see less literary journalism going forward.

Same, I'm afraid, for Esquire.

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

BTW, I'd forgotten that Charlie Pierce is still covering politics for them. Always like his stuff.

 

[typefitter]

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!

 

[Azrael]

Distilleries still buy ads, don't they?

 

[Azrael]

Funny to see Tom's byline in the Atlantic.

My Friend Mister Rogers

 

[Alma]

Interesting to go back and reread this thread.

Waylon probably got out. It's the smart move. Hard to make a living in magazines these days.

GQ, Esquire and Vanity Fair are all struggling to find new editorial identities.

Graydon Carter was easy to mock at VF, but is proving impossible to replace.

GQ and Esquire are both gut renovations. Too early to tell which will win over more luxury advertisers, and with them that audience of young men interested in watches, shaving and British tailoring. But the Fielden years at Esquire hurt the brand more than helped it.

I'm struggling to think of any noteworthy literary journalism either title has done since the regimes change.

The New Yorker remains best in show. New York magazine is still very good, and will change some more once the Adam Moss imprint is gone and the magazine is fully David Haskell's. Jake Silverstein is killing it at NYT Magazine. The best-looking book around is another Times product, T Magazine.

Rolling Stone is still limping along.

Harper's, the Atlantic, 5280, the California Sunday Magazine are all good. National Geographic, Smithsonian, Outside, Texas Monthly. The same.

Adapt or die.

Haven't read Rolling Stone in awhile. Still a shill mag or does it dare critical reviews of popular music?

 

[playthrough]

This addresses some of what we're talking about here.

As Men Are Canceled, So Too Their Magazine Subscriptions

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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.

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?

 

[BitterYoungMatador2]

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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.

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.

 

[Alma]

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 shirtty MNF games. Skipper wanted that, though. Grantland was a sinkhole of money. I'm confident the undefeated is, too.

 

[Azrael]

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 shirtty MNF games. Skipper wanted that, though. Grantland was a sinkhole of money. I'm confident the undefeated is, too.

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.