Magazine relaunches kill or cure?
By ANNE-MARIE CRAWFORD, campaignlive.co.uk, Friday, 16 August 1996 12:00AM
Change is crucial to ensure a magazine’s continued success, whether it's a process of gradual evolution or a last-ditch attempt to save an ailing title. Anne-Marie Crawford reports on how the publishers approach this risky business
Change is crucial to ensure a magazine’s continued success, whether it’s
a process of gradual evolution or a last-ditch attempt to save an ailing
title. Anne-Marie Crawford reports on how the publishers approach this
If there’s one thing that is constant in the rapidly fragmenting world
of media, it’s change: changing audiences, changing objectives, changing
environments and changing channels of communication. If it’s your job to keep on top of all this, good luck, because it’s scary out there.
Magazines are in a constant state of flux. Think of your favourite
magazine and the chances are it’s been relaunched, redesigned, tweaked, tinkered with or tarted up at some point in its life.
The great and the good, as well as the downright downmarket, have all
gone back to the designer’s drawing board in recent years: She, Elle,
Cosmopolitan, Punch, New Statesman, Eva, Ideal Home and OK! are just a handful of the titles to have reinvented themselves - often for
surprisingly similar reasons.
It's a fact of life that magazines need clearly defined target audiences
and healthy circulation figures to attract advertisers and generate
revenue. If one element of this virtuous circle has lost its virtue,
action, on the publisher’s part, becomes necessary.
The most prominent examples in recent times are She and Punch, which
have both been dramatically overhauled. She, published by the National
Magazine Company, underwent radical surgery in March 1990 after a long period of stagnation. The magazine had meandered along with no clear proposition since its launch in 1955 and reached a plateau of 200,000 readers.
It was repositioned as the magazine for ‘women who juggle their lives’
by the former editor of Cosmopolitan, Linda Kelsey, who had just
returned to work having had a baby. The changes incorporated a complete redesign, a new format, new editorial sections and a much glossier approach. Today, She sells 245,839 copies, so the changes appear to have worked.
For Punch, it was relaunch or be consigned forever to the historical
scrapheap. The magazine originally launched in 1841 as a hard-hitting,
satirical, decidedly Republican publication. It was taken up with glee
by the middle classes - but then, in an effort to retain that very
readership profile, Punch lost its edge and became just another humorous magazine.
The real decline began in the 1950s and 60s, but the title soldiered on
until its closure in April 1992. Stewart Steven, the chairman of Liberty
Publishing - which rescued Punch from oblivion earlier this year - says:
‘It became a cosy, British, non-essential read.’
Liberty’s answer is to return to Punch’s original proposition and
reinvent it for the 90s. The new-look magazine, which launches on 6
September - autumn is traditionally the best time to hit the market with
something new - has been redesigned in-house and promises to be a tough, witty read for the literary, politically aware consumer.
Despite these examples, full-blown redesigns are more often viewed as a risky undertaking for publishers. As Nigel Conway, media planning
director at the Media Centre, points out, such a drastic step can
indicate a serious lack of confidence in your product and alienate more
readers than it attracts. He believes the key for consumer titles is
evolution rather than revolution - even when there is no immediate
"Many publishers prefer to make changes over time and gradually evolve a magazine. If you look at the January and October issues of many magazines, you’ll probably see a huge difference, but you may not notice it actually happening. And just look at most of the men’s titles: 18 months ago there were no tits and bums; now they’re everywhere, partly as a result of the success of Loaded. Often, evolution is the only answer in a competitive marketplace,’ he says.
Indeed, IPC takes the strategy a stage further and follows a policy of
what it calls ‘continuous incremental improvement’. Nigel Davidson,
managing director of the Weeklies Group, says: ‘We try never to let any
magazine stand still.’
By following this strategy, Davidson maintains that major relaunches
should not be necessary, unless a new competitor launches and changes
the dynamics of the marketplace.
Arguably, this is happening in the teenage sector, where the launch of
Sugar by Attic Futura in November 1994 captured the trend away from
market-driven issues towards a monthly lifestyle feel. Other publishing
houses are now looking afresh at this sector and we can expect to see
some movement here in the months ahead.
Paul Mukherjee, press and radio buying director at the Network, agrees
with the evolution theory of magazines. ‘It’s the purest form of
Darwinism,’ he says. ‘Everything is evolving. Once products had life
cycles measurable in years, now it’s months. Consumers get easily bored with products and are promiscuous - they have to feel they’re getting their money’s worth with magazines, especially as TV and newspapers are eating into what magazines do.’
Mukherjee believes that the closer publishers are to their readers, the
better they are at judging the marketplace.
For that reason, most major publishers conduct ongoing readership
surveys and questionnaires, focus groups, bespoke research and events
aimed at tying the consumer back into the magazine brand. IPC, for
instance, operates a rolling readership base of 4,000 people across all
its titles, NatMags runs the Country Living Fair and BBC Magazines lures
readers with its Clothes Show Live.
On top of this, most publishers regularly consult media agencies in
order to keep abreast of the marketplace. Conway says Emap’s chief
executive, Tom Moloney, and Conde Nast’s managing director, Nicholas
Coleridge, regularly send their publishers into the agency.
Arguably, if publishers are continually keeping such close tabs on their
readers, there should be no reason for major rethinks. But sometimes it
doesn’t quite work that way. For example, some editors stay on at the
top far too long and allow a fixed formula to prevail. Over time, this
approach can cause readers to drift.
Many feel Marcelle d’Argy Smith, the former editor of Cosmopolitan, was
a case in point. ‘Marcelle had edited Cosmo for years and had a set idea
about how she saw the magazine,’ says one media buyer, who chooses to remain anonymous. Cosmo’s problems have been well-documented, but is it fair to lay the blame at Marcelle’s door? Probably not. But it may have been the one element of a delicate mix that was out of sync.
There is no doubt that some editors are larger than life and come to
epitomise their brands - Glenda Bailey, formerly of Marie Claire, and
Sally O’Sullivan, former editor of Good Housekeeping and now responsible for Ideal Home - are obvious examples. But fresh editorial input, combined with other carefully planned activity can reinvigorate an
Some think that Cosmo was caught off-guard when Marie Claire launched in 1988 and has fought to maintain its market dominance ever since. Under its new editor, Mandi Norwood, Cosmo has undergone a series of differences designed to update the product and take it back to its original unassailable position.
NatMags has always strenuously denied talk of a relaunch, but the
changes between Norwood’s Cosmo and d’Argy Smith’s are clear to see.
Time will tell whether Norwood’s influence can propel the brand far
ahead of its rival. The latest ABC figures show it is inching up but,
for the moment, Marie Claire is still snapping at its heels.
Emap Elan’s Elle has also faced similar problems in the women’s monthly
market. Since its launch in 1985, it has declined steadily from a peak
circulation of 250,000, to 191, 243 in the latest round of ABCs. The
Elle team has now completed a major revamp under the aegis of its new
editor, Marie O’Riordan, who joined in February from the hugely
Elle’s executive publishing director, Carrie Barker, admits that the
disappointing July-December 1995 ABC figure acted as a catalyst for a
major rethink. ‘We employed focus groups to talk to Elle readers and
find out what the magazine meant to them. We also did quantitative
research to analyse each page. We then went back to the original
international formula, looked at the templates and decided what needed
to be done,’ she says.
In order to help her create a new, improved product, O’Riordan appointed Elle’s first creative director, Stuart Selner, soon after she joined. The changes the team has wrought, although they fall short of a complete relaunch, have been pretty significant. They have included the
introduction of a regular six-page feature at the start of the magazine,
improvements to various sections, the introduction of new columnists,
and investment in glossy cover production.
In general, consumer publishers prefer to carry out redesigns in-house
rather than call in external consultancies, although they may often wish
to inject fresh creative blood.
David Hillman, a partner at the magazine consultancy, Pentagram, says
newspapers and trade magazines tend to be the most lucrative area for
his company. ‘Consumer publishers tend to have their own in-house
designers and art departments,’ he says. Despite this, Pentagram was
called in to work on the launch of John Brown Publishing’s Classic FM
magazine in 1994.
IPC consulted a number of freelance advisers on its biggest relaunch to
date, the repositioning of Ideal Home, but brought in a new art
director, Julie Rogers from Top Sante, to help carry through the
changes. As Chris Boyd, managing director of IPC’s Southbank Group,
points out, if your in-house design team can’t do it, they won’t be able
to carry through the necessary ongoing changes to the magazine.
For a publisher who chooses to outsource the work, magazine redesigns
can cost anything upwards of pounds 12,000, for a concept redesign,
according to Hillman. Pentagram charges pounds 1,500 per day and counts
Esterson Lackersteen as its main competitor.
In-house redesigns usually cost publishers more because of the
additional promotional element, such as cover-price cuts. Boyd reckons
the Ideal Home relaunch cost about pounds 1 million all told, while
Elle’s publicity drive alone cost about pounds 750,000.
The personnel responsible for magazine redesigns can vary considerably.
The Elle changes were set in motion by Barker, working in conjunction
with the editor-in-chief, Ian Birch. The Ideal Home revamp saw the
redoubtable O’Sullivan as editor join forces with Boyd to thrash out a
concept and sell it to the IPC board (indeed, Boyd goes so far as to say
it probably wouldn’t have happened without O’Sullivan). The publishing
director, Kathy Rudd, then worked through the changes with O’Sullivan.
As a rule of thumb, the publisher will always be closely involved
somewhere along the line.
Magazines are always changing and that is what makes them unique. As
Colin Gottlieb, managing partner at Manning Gottlieb Media, says: ‘The
magazine medium is a wonderfully buoyant market, unlike any other. It’s competitive and reactive and there is a huge amount of choice and
overlap.’ For all these reasons, publishers will constantly need to
rework what they are saying to consumers through their different
publications and market circumstances will dictate the nature of those
This article was first published on campaignlive.co.uk
- Mid Weight Planner - ATL Daniel Marks London £30-£50K + Excellent Benefits, Central London
- Business Development Director - Design Branding and Integrated - London Spectrum £70,000 - £90,000, London
- Middleweight Graphic Designer become £28-35K, Central London
- Account Manager Ball & Hoolahan £38,000 + benefits, London
- Senior UX/IA Mobile Designer - 3 Month Contract - London Network Career Consultants £300 - £350 per day, London