Some cosmetic changes in preparation for larger site changes in the works.


A few thoughts:

Veteran Member
2993 posts
Joined: Jul 17, 2006


Posted to Thread #18908 at 2:02 am on Sep 3, 2010

1. I really don't think there was some sinister plot to get rid of Gourmet on the part of Conde Nast. The magazine was a casualty of ad rates that fell 42% in the first quarter of 2009, and of stagnant circulation growth.

2. Bon Appetit had better circulation (1.4 million) than Gourmet--980,000--and slightly higher reader average incomes: $83,563, compared to Gourmet's $81,179. On the advice of the McKinsey consulting firm, the company chose to ax Gourmet, not Bon Appetit. This isn't sick--it's economics.

3. Maybe, just maybe, someone at Conde Nast was actually shrewd about Gourmet: CEO Chuck Townsend's 10/2/09 memo states that they remain committed to the brand, and boy, do they ever. Gourmet is now poised to launch again as the Gourmet Live app and in the newsstand-only editions mentioned in Orchid's link. It's entirely possible that they decided to kill it with the knowledge that they could bring some aspect of the brand back in a year. That wouldn't surprise me.

So while I agree that it's weasely, I'm not sure what is really "sick" about it. It seems like smart brand management (or recovery) to me, from an economic perspective. From the consumer side, it's a good question: would you rather have a little Gourmet than none at all?

Other messages in this thread: