If you were a McKinsey consultant, which Conde Nast magazine would you fold?

You know the Reaper loves games and here's a new one for all you management consultant wannabe's.

It's no secret that Conde Nast has retained McKinsey & Company to "rethink" how it does its business.

So let's pretend you are the lead consultant on the job, kicking the tires around Si's publishing empire, looking for efficiencies and as Charlie Daniels once said, "a soul to steal."

Which magazine would you fold first? Not because you don't like it but because you think it is truly dying and does not deserve to live or the future will be, ahem, unkind or it has outlived its purpose. And why would you fold it?

Here is the line-up of troubled favorites:

• W
• Allure
• Self
• Glamour
• Teen Vogue
• Details
• Architectural Digest
• Brides
• Modern Bride
• Elegant Bride
• Lucky
• Vanity Fair
• Gourmet
• Bon Appetit
• Conde Nast Traveler
• Wired
• The New Yorker

NOTE: I purposefully left off Vogue, GQ and Cookie since the odds of them folding compared to the others is much slimmer.

Comments

[Butter]

Redundancy is the issue.

I'd keep one or two titles from each genre and demographic that reached out to the greatest number of people. So here is the list of titles I'd fold, or have go digital only.

* W
* Allure
* Teen Vogue
* Details
* Brides
* Elegant Bride
* Lucky
* Bon Appetit

[Paul Riddell]

Wired. Conde Nast got stuck with that turkey nearly 15 years ago, and it's become less and less relevant every year. In 1996, it was being bought mostly by Cat Piss Men who believed that Bruce Sterling actually had anything to say, and the IT directors of built-to-flip dotcoms who wanted venture capitalists to see the same reading material that the VCs were reading in the airport. The magazine was nothing but a half-assed attempt to corner the Mondo 2000/Science Fiction Eye market, and would have been dropped within a year if both Queen Mu and Steve Brown hadn't been too busy believing their own hype to get the damn magazines out on time. (That's the real reason why Wired survived while Mondo and bOINGbOING and Science Fiction Eye died: at least the crew at Wired could get issues out on time without lying about how "our delivery truck, which was bringing issues from Wisconsin to North Carolina, broke down in Louisiana and needed three months to repair," and managed to get six and then twelve issues out per year instead of one every three years. By the time it died, SF Eye was referred to as "The Last Dangerous Magazine". I found that to be libelous: contributors to The Last Dangerous Visions got paid.)

The fun tech experimentation is in Make, the actual news you need is on Wired.com, and just about every other tech magazine around when Wired was new is either dead or online-only. Pull the string.

[George Graves]

I've got to agree with Butter.

Brides, Modern Bride, Elegant Bride? hmm... what becomes the obvious decision based on efficiency and avoiding redundancy? I guess I wouldn't fold one magazine period but I would fold three into one. If you want to keep what little variety there is between the three you do focus issues.

[Jermo]

Please! Take them all!

The trees of the world thank you.

Drivel. Each and every one.

[knowitall]

i think the obvious move would be to close 2 of the bridal maagazines. who needs 3?

wired should be closed. it used to be a tech magazine. a sort of 'must-read' for the computer industry. now nobody really bothers. but since conde nast just opened british wired (bad art and retreads from the u.s. version), thie probably won't happen.

lucky should've been closed ages ago.

[Butter]

Explanation of my choices:

* W (used to be relevant. now it's just formulaic and uses the same dinosaur photographer in every issue since conde nast took it over)
* Allure (competes enough with Glamour, and Glamour has a better worldwide brand)
* Teen Vogue (can roll Teen Vogue into regular Vogue. don't think the teen demographic really is for advertisers of luxury brands)
* Details (not focused enough to be an interesting periodical. Esquire clearly has the market)
* Brides (only one bride magazine needed)
* Elegant Bride (only one bride magazine needed)
* Lucky (pedestrian rag that is basically a large catalog of products. the photoshoots are horrible, and overall the magazine quality is sub-par. though it might find space in the Redbook, Family Circle, Woman's Day demographic)
* Bon Appetit

[jzipperer]

Am I missing something? Isn't GQ a Conde mag? The fact that you forgot it could be reason enough ...

[Bearina]

Cookie is also a Conde Nast title and so is Vogue, Golf Digest and Golf World. You're a little sloppy at times, Grim! Or are the above not "troubled?"

[MWilliams]

No, no, no. Have you ever been a bride? When it's your turn to get married, you buy them all. I would say MORE bride mags, in fact. I mean, it's all newsstand gravy for bride mags. Girls will keep getting married and they will always tear out dress ads from print magazines and put them in their little planning book. Always.

Redundancy isn't reason to kill. Relevancy is. And for that reason I'd make the staff members of Details, Bon Appetit, and Self explain to me how they will engage an audience 5 years from now.

Details was fantastic before Conde Nast and immediately after Conde Nast with James (can't remember his name! he became CN editorial director). Then it was just... oh, just couldn't keep up with all its imitators. Now, it's like... Wired should absorb Details' audience. Consider!

Bon Appetit has had a cool makeover... but it's no Gourmet. Plus, it seems like all the food mags are dominated by celebrities. It's nice, but I just can't tell who the audience is.

Self has always just pissed me off. Okay, you said not to choose because I don't like it but I'M IN PRETEND-CHARGE HERE! It's just so... white. Cover models look like shiny Barbies and content so broken up and snappy, it's almost useless. I know there are women and girls who still pick this up, but I swear it's out of guilt. ("Must lose weight. Must lose weight.") And I think chicks are going to get sick of drippy mags with photoshopped barbies on the cover telling them how to get flatter abs. "Oh, f*#@ off, stupid skinny white bitch." Remember, we're about to experience a brown-out in this country. Five years from now, most young women won't be turning to Self for guidance on looking good.

(Also, PLEASE do something about VOGUE. It's awful. Sad. All the pedestrian cutlines, all the stupid "slumming it" stories. Stop trying to relate to the masses, Vogue! That's not why we read you! Spend more, not less. THEN I'll subscribe.)

[David Ross]

I'm not sure why you guys are all slagging Wired. While Wired seems to be struggling like all the rest, it has done a great job of remaining relevant and fresh and has a pretty rabid fan base. I would advise anyone who doubts that to really sit down and read an issue. It is incredibly well produced and has a model that all magazines will need to follow whatever their market: creative thinking and well constructed, well-researched articles that go faily deep into a subject. This is what the web can't do.

As for the question at hand:
Teen Vogue has no relevancy and Details sucks.

The rest I can't really speak for but it seems many women really like Lucky. I think that mag has a pretty solid fan base though the web will probably beat it out as it can update a lot quicker all the latest cr*p to waste your money on!

[Zubinski]

They need to cut Gourmet. Ever since I discovered Kraft Dinner and Purina casserole, I don't need any new recipes.

[wlittle]

Wired the print magazine may be hurting, but I do believe it brings value to the readers and advertisers. It's web-presence is very strong, too. The magazine may never be profitable for them again, but the "Wired" property will remain strong.

Want a magazine that writes great editorial, with forward thinking design and knows its readers? See Wired.

[Ted Craig]

Isn't Bon Appetit more of a brand than Gourmet?

[Anonymous]

Architectural Digest needs to go - it's useless. Lucky should not be on that list. It's doing amazingly well..

[Anonymous]

Allure is the beauty bible..it has it's on voice. Gourmet should have been cut a long time ago (bon Ap is the best) and how can any of them compete with the new Food Network Magazine at Hearst (AMAZING). Cut the brides..and who needs W when there is Vogue. Details does an amazing job at hitting a niche market that none of the other MASS mens books do.

[Paul Riddell]

Wlittle, the problem is that the Wired Web site is still separate from the magazine. Besides, we can talk about "bringing value" to readers and advertisers all day long, but that still doesn't matter if nobody's buying it. I'm sure that most of the other magazines on this site "brought value" in some undefinable fashion to their customers, too, but in the final analysis, if more money is going out than coming in, that's all that anybody really cares about.

[Blake's Baby]

Details is a joke. Out does a much better job of servicing a gay reader. OOPS, I forgot--Details isn't supposed a gay magazine!

But seriously: Your entire Spring/Summer fashion section highlights khakis and light colored shirts? Who needed to be told about that? I guess that's what you get when a window dresser is your fashion director.

[ANON]

I agree, OUT is a MUCH better magazine than Details. I find it funny that Details claims they are NOT a gay magazine, until they are pitching for business that is going after the gay demo! LOL

[Kate]

This is a sad time for anyone involved in magazine publishing, when the envy of the publishing world, Conde Nast calls in the butchers for a blood bath.

After reducing poor performing redundant magazines in the market, why not also think about what magazines should and should not be doing. For example, here is a crazy idea:

STOP giving content online away for free (hello, why would I buy Gourmet if I can find the same thing for free on the Internet),
STOP bartering away ad pages for nothing under the lame-o term "partnerships",
and STOP putting subs out for $5 a year.

Maybe then, when the next shock comes from the economy and ad dollars disappear (and if magazines are still around), magazines have something to stand on.

[rundogrun]

As far as the readers are concerned, Vogue, Vanity Fair and Glamour all rank among the worst magazines for reader loyalty. Which begs the question...if the readers don't want it, why keep publishing it? And why do advertisers keep buying them???

New Yorker is probably losing money faster than any of them, but I don't see that closing. Put down another vote for Wired.

[Paul Riddell]

Kate, I can't agree with you more, but the last two STOPs are going to be the sticking point. The cheap subscriptions (not to mention the free subscriptions) are going to continue so long as advertisers demand a certain amount of ad exposure. That's why you see so many regional magazines that give away free subscriptions through PBS pledge drives and the like: they know they're losing x amount of money by providing copies that will most likely end up right in the trash, but they still have the hard copy to show advertisers "Guess what? We can justify this rate because we can prove that we have y number of readers!" (The reason why regional magazines and weekly papers are being beaten like redheaded stepchildren is that advertisers are finally realizing (a) the venues are pulling readership numbers out of their asses and have been for years and (b) one online ad can track exactly how many people are really responding to the advertising. Your more high-end publications are running into the situation where the idiots who kept buying full-page ads purely for ego are going out of business, and their replacements actually expect some kind of return.)

Now, that situation on bartering away ad pages isn't going to stop, and that's the fault of the publishers. I used to work for one magazine where we'd get calls all day long from various skeevy MBAs who wanted half-page and full-page ads, and the publisher would tell the ad department "give them their ads." Then, when the ad department would call up to collect the ad fees, they'd be told "You don't understand. Ray and I have an _understanding_." That understanding was that these sleazes and the publisher were frat brothers, and he wasn't going to ask any of his brothers to pay their fair share. Because of this, the magazine lasted a whole five issues before it imploded, because any ad revenue that could have been made was instead given to fratboys who wanted freebies.

Right there, that's where most of those "partnerships" are going. Half of the time, they happen because some cokehead fratboy starts yammering about "synergy"; the other half of the time, it's because someone has some really good dirt on the publisher. In both cases, the publication will shut down long before anybody admits that these were bad ideas, and the hope is that if you keep your mouth shut, you'll be hired to work at the publisher's newest id gratification. (I'm always amazed at how many editors, writers, and graphic artists continue to go back to work for the same sleazebags over and over, and they always act like the cliche of the abused housewife who's certain that her bully of a husband really cares. "Ray repeatedly worked me over with a six-foot sandstone strap-on lubed with habanero sauce, and half of the time he was trying to hammer it in sideways while insisting that I call him 'Daddy'. But that's all right, because I know he loves me. You'll see!")

[Paul Riddell]

Oh, and rondogrun, I agree with you that Conde Nast will go under before it shuts down any of those magazines. The problem here is that the advertisers and the magazines are in a lovely feedback loop. At this point, I don't think either group gives a fart in a high wind about anyone actually reading any of these magazines. They now all exist solely To Be Seen. So long as the "New Yorker" and "Vanity Fair" continue to show up on supermarket magazine stands, the advertisers will point and tell everyone within the timezone "Look! I'm an advertiser!" Likewise, so long as the advertisers feel they're getting their prostates, er, I mean egos massaged, they'll keep on buying more ad space. Readers? They're just a pain in the ass, and they only get in the way.

[mc]

Sorry, w/ that list, I can't do objective. All except Wired and The New Yorker are shite...albeit some are more shite than others.

[Raymond Chuang]

I think Vanity Fair will survive because a very core audience--well-off liberals--still read the magazine strongly and many of them would be more than happy to "chip in" to keep that magazine going.

[Anon]

Too much redundancy. Brides, Modern Bride and Elegant Bride! Newsstand buyers have spoken! EB and MB are anemic. pull the plug on both and focus.