The redoubtable Marcelle D'Argy Smith has edited a magazine or two
in her time, most recently, from 1997-9, Woman's Journal. So she spoke
with more than a little authority last week when she declared herself
unimpressed with IPC's decision to close the magazine. It led her to
compare cultures at IPC and its more upmarket rival, Conde Nast. Where
Conde Nast is, she suggested, a small and exclusive school of publishing
excellence, IPC is more like an unruly comprehensive.
Ouch. There was obviously a modicum of score-settling involved here -
she didn't feel she was given the support she deserved during her tenure
- but possibly more than a grain of truth too. The 74-year-old Woman's
Journal was not the only IPC title to receive bad news last week. Your
Life, Your Garden, Homes & Ideas and Marie Claire Health and Beauty were
also culled.
Sure, there's a recession on, but perhaps the broader themes here are
focus and discipline. For years magazine brands have been propagating
indiscriminately, almost like viruses. There's hardly a title in the
market that hasn't been subjected to a myriad of brand extensions and
spin-offs as publishers attempt to exploit all manner of perceived "gaps
in the market".
Not that this theory applies directly to Woman's Journal, but it failed
to stand out any more than your average spin-off - it merely arrived
there by another route. Is this the main lesson we should take from the
IPC cull, that the days of woolly thinking are now well and truly over,
that there's absolutely no room now for ill-defined or undifferentiated
magazines?
Or is there another agenda here involving IPC's new owner, AOL Time
Warner?
"Absolutely not," Philippa Brown, IPC's group marketing director,
states.
"We must absolutely, categorically set the record straight on that. This
isn't driven by AOL Time Warner. It doesn't work that way - it lets you
get on with the business." What's the story? In a recession you tighten
belts, not lop off limbs. Brown responds: "There are very few companies
with 100 brands. That's what we have. When you have a portfolio that big
it must continually be under review. If products aren't delivering, then
we are not afraid to close them. By the same token we are not afraid to
launch or relaunch magazines. If you want evidence of that look at the
TV Times and Loaded. We are not risk-averse. Sometimes it takes people a
while to get used to new ideas and for new sectors to come into being -
but that doesn't mean that innovative titles are ill-defined. One thing
that we remain committed to in particular is putting investment into our
pillar brands - the core titles that support profitability."
In other words, IPC has always pursued a portfolio management strategy -
a high turnover of properties. Launches and closures, in almost equal
measure, are the mark of a dynamic publishing company. Brown says that
throughout its history IPC has done this and, she claims, been very good
at it. So this is business as usual.
Caroline Simpson, the press director at Zenith Media, agrees. "It's
harsh for the individuals involved, but this is a step that should have
been taken months and, in some cases, years ago. The emphasis IPC has
placed on market share has perhaps clouded judgment on the long-term
viability of individual titles in the past."
She agrees that there is even less room for woolly thinking in an
environment of mergers and acquisitions. "The real strength of any
publishing group comes not from its cumulative sale, but from the
strength of its individual brands. Weaker titles tend to be infrequent,
secondary purchases. They don't have the readership loyalty, the depth
of relationship commanded by the stronger brands. This is particularly
true when the economic climate starts to get tougher. Spin-offs, such as
Marie Claire Health and Beauty, suddenly find both advertisers and
readers reverting back to the core brand."
Simpson adds that the lack of reader loyalty is more obvious when a
title has been "buying" its audience with a heavily discounted cover
price or cover-mounts. Such promotions artificially raise sales figures
and ill-targeted cover-mounts skew the readership profile away from the
core audience at which the editorial and advertising are aimed.
Oliver Cleaver, the European media director of Kimberly-Clark, uses a
lot of magazines. Has he noticed a greater churn rate in recent years,
with publishers launching speculative ventures to which they are in no
way committed? He states: "My first thought is that the UK market is
over-magazined. The second thought is that what refreshes the market is
the survival of the fittest and that the smart publishers react before
they are absolutely forced to react."
Cleaver adds: "Big corporations can be clinical when it comes to killing
things off but the flip side is that they are able to protect brands
with identity and potential. When it comes to launching magazines, if
you use a slide rule then you lose all the creative juice. It's probably
true that some perceived gaps in the market don't really exist at all.
But the thing is that you won't ever know until you try. With the IPC
situation, when you look at what's gone, I don't think there are many
surprises."
Laura James, the media director of PHD, argues that many publishers need
to face up to the fact that they publish a lot of faceless titles:
"There are many magazines out there in the marketplace with clearly
defined offerings and editorial propositions, but they need constant
nurturing, attention and investment. But when you look at IPC's
portfolio you might conclude that this sort of pruning is inevitable in
the current climate."
James adds: "Homes & Ideas, for instance, was 13th in the pecking order
in its category - a category that has been showing little or no growth.
Marie Claire Health and Beauty is, you could argue, in a secondary
market. Your Life is in a sector completely driven by the celebrity
titles. Woman's Journal has been rumoured to be closing for a year."
She concludes: "In general, the market is very bland. You can de-badge
many titles and they'd all look exactly the same. Given the current
climate, people might be thinking it's better to invest in brands that
have a definite place in the market. And if that means getting rid of
some of the also-rans, then so be it. For advertisers it means less
choice, which isn't good in some respects but it's perhaps better in the
long run if we have stranger brands than a complete spread of titles
ranging from the red hot to the nondescript."
