You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gourmet making a comeback? Did anyone else see this?
- Thread starter orchid
- Start date
steve2-in-la
Well-known member
Long run? Short pier? I'm with you on that. Cancel subscriptions, then come out with a $10 version.
The weasels. They should send free issues to everyone who got stuck with BA as a (2nd rate) alternative. I'm just sayin'.
The weasels. They should send free issues to everyone who got stuck with BA as a (2nd rate) alternative. I'm just sayin'.
It is very sad what is happening to magazines, newspapers, and television today
They probably retained the corporation name and are trying to bring back something of themselves.
I don't really know what you are talking about Kendall, so I may just be out of the loop on this one....but I hate to see a business go down.
They probably retained the corporation name and are trying to bring back something of themselves.
I don't really know what you are talking about Kendall, so I may just be out of the loop on this one....but I hate to see a business go down.
Conde Nast is not going down, I spelled it wrong
I don't know this, but I doubt seriously Conde Nast sold the rights to Gourmet Mag. Conde Nast is the company that owns Gourmet, Bon Appetit, Epicurious website, travel magazines, and here it is in Wikipedia:
Condé Nast (pronounced /ˌkɒndeɪˈnæst/) is a worldwide magazine publishing company. Its main offices are located in New York, Chicago, Miami, Madrid, Milan, Tokyo, London and Paris. Condé Nast is run by S.I. Newhouse Jr, and is a division of Advance Publications, who have owned the company since 1959.
I've done 2 posts on here about it, and I know this because when I put Condinaste in startpage search (start page doesn't record your isp, or track your surfing for big bro btw), I didn't get condinaste, but 2 post numbers here, LOL. They are post #s 118495 and 116586.
Conde Nast treated us like less than poop at Gail's Recipe swap on Epicurious, and they shamelessly used our chat hits, which were 100s of 1000s a day to sell advertising on the Epicurious site. However, they treated us with such disrespect throughout many years, and I know many of us are now here, I don't know about others.
Gail's Recipe Swap chatters held several parties throughout the years, and I was fortunate to have hosted the 2000 Epi Party. Sad. You can go back and find my previous posts, and they explain more.
I don't know this, but I doubt seriously Conde Nast sold the rights to Gourmet Mag. Conde Nast is the company that owns Gourmet, Bon Appetit, Epicurious website, travel magazines, and here it is in Wikipedia:
Condé Nast (pronounced /ˌkɒndeɪˈnæst/) is a worldwide magazine publishing company. Its main offices are located in New York, Chicago, Miami, Madrid, Milan, Tokyo, London and Paris. Condé Nast is run by S.I. Newhouse Jr, and is a division of Advance Publications, who have owned the company since 1959.
I've done 2 posts on here about it, and I know this because when I put Condinaste in startpage search (start page doesn't record your isp, or track your surfing for big bro btw), I didn't get condinaste, but 2 post numbers here, LOL. They are post #s 118495 and 116586.
Conde Nast treated us like less than poop at Gail's Recipe swap on Epicurious, and they shamelessly used our chat hits, which were 100s of 1000s a day to sell advertising on the Epicurious site. However, they treated us with such disrespect throughout many years, and I know many of us are now here, I don't know about others.
Gail's Recipe Swap chatters held several parties throughout the years, and I was fortunate to have hosted the 2000 Epi Party. Sad. You can go back and find my previous posts, and they explain more.
A few thoughts:
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?
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?
michael-in-phoenix
Well-known member
Erin, you know what you are talking about, and I wouldn't argue. But, I find it difficult to ...
...forgive Conde Nast for what they did to Gail's Swap.
Absolutely asinine, what they did.
Michael
...forgive Conde Nast for what they did to Gail's Swap.
Absolutely asinine, what they did.
Michael