Meredith President: ‘We Don’t Hire Editors Anymore’

MIAMI—The period of “discontinuous change” and upheaval in the magazine industry has forced virtually every magazine publisher to tear up its playbook, Meredith publishing president Jack Griffin says. And perhaps, with the exception of technology magazines, no publisher has been forced to tear it up faster than Meredith.

“The 'Leave it to Beaver' America is an ancient relic,” Griffin said during his keynote presentation at the 2008 FOLIO: Publishing Summit here Thursday.

Griffin, on crutches and hobbled by a recent emergency surgery to repair a broken leg, said the change American consumer demographics—specifically, the spike in Internet usage and the emerging “white minority”—forced the Des Moines-based publisher to evaluate all aspects of its publishing business.

Meredith, Griffin said, was “founded on the social construct of Dad at work, Mom at home, Chevy in the driveway.” For a company that publishes “white-bread” magazines, he said, “the change has been quite provocative.”

As a result, the company invested in its interactive and integrated marketing businesses—spending roughly $600 million since 2002 on launches, acquisitions and building out its existing Web sites, Griffin said, as well as redefining its editorial hiring approach. “We don’t hire editors anymore,” he said. “We hire content strategists.”

Griffin pointed out that one of the company’s signature brands, Better Homes and Gardens, had its best year ever in 2007. “In the age of splintering, there are ways to revitalize a big, important brand.”

But change doesn’t guarantee success. Ad pages are off eight percent so far this year, Griffin said, adding that in November, Meredith’s stock price was at $63 per share. It closed yesterday at $46.

SEE RELATED VIDEO Q+A: Griffin at the 2008 FOLIO: Publishing Summit

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The article has been corrected. Meredith's ad pages, not revenues, are down eight percent this year.]

COMMENTS: 12

Post Comment / Discuss This Story - Info/Rules

Editors Are Content Strategists

Submitted by Ren Mille on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 13:18.

Good editors have always been content strategists. The problem many magazines face today is in hiring content strategists who don't understand the larger role of editor. Those who do understand deliver products that engage readers and, thus, benefit advertisers

Editors are Content strategiests

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 13:46.

He's just waking up to this NOW???? Good grief! Would that some of their editors WERE editors! I had a very short-lived part-time job at Meredith back when I was in college, working for one of the junior editors at Metropolitan Life. She couldn't spell, thought "a lot" was one word, and pronounced Cuisinart "Kewzinart." And I got fired for correcting her spelling and pronunciation. Sigh. I'm amazed they're still in business.

Editors are Content Strategiests

Submitted by Robin Sherman on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 15:37.

I have to think there is more to the Griffin comment than meets the eye in this story. Is Folio: providing the complete Griffin picture with this story? Griffin could not be this short-sighted. Ren has it right. We need content strategists who are also good editors. But these days they also need to have background in service journalism, design, writing for web and email newsletters, content management, information architecture, navigation, usability, and shared vocabularies. But MOSTLY they need to know EXACTLY WHAT THEIR READERS WANT, the best ways to deliver it and how to do it. I hope content strategists do not replace good journalists, or who will care what is published. I'd rather replace the CEO who does not provide the resources for quality staff and useful content.

Editors are Content Strategiests

Submitted by Henry Baker on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 17:03.

Why am I not shocked at editors renamed "Content Strategists" in this Age of Euphemisms? On its editorial page in print editions, the major morning Southwest Florida daily (Fort Myers) News-Press now lists its editorial writers as "Community Conversation Ambassadors" and the page editor as "Community Conversation Editor." At this point, I can only thank God I'm still alive and retirement for sparing me from such insanity.

Editors are Content Strategists

Submitted by Melissa on Fri, 02/22/2008 - 22:40.

Henry, you have got to be kidding! Community Conversation Ambassadors? No, thank you. If I write an editorial, I want to be listed as an editorial writer, not stuck with some dopey "cute" title. Likewise with the page editor position. And I must say, I feel the same way about renaming editors and now calling them content strategists. These silly tactics only obscure the reality of the position and insult everyone's intelligence.

Titles, titles

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 18:20.

Perhaps everybody here should focus more on delivering content exactly what the consumer demands rather than worry about what astute title you're assigned for your work. Remember--your consumer (whether Web, print or broadcast) is your boss, and they certainly don't care if your title is "editor," "Community conversation ambassador" or "Mickey Mouse." As long as the content's there, the consumer could care less. Seems like there's some focus lacking in some of these previous remarks.

Actually, Robin, we are ...

Submitted by Dylan Stableford on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 11:19.

... Robin, with respect to your question "Is Folio: providing the complete Griffin picture with this story?" -- since I wrote it, I'll answer: Yes. Or, as much as we can provide in under 300 words. And I didn't think Mr. Griffin was shortsighted whatsoever. It was, however, the first time I have heard a publishing executive put a title on what we, as editors, all -- or should -- do anyway.

The "'Leave It To Beaver' is

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 23:25.

The "'Leave It To Beaver' is dead" revelation has been available for years, and--like so many in upper-strata management--Mr. Griffin does not know what the roles of staff members are. Someone fed the keynote speaker some semantics, and they were repeated. Management in large companies often has little to do with actual work or workers, and its attempts are usually grin-and-bear-it trying episodes to everyone but its cheerleaders. I don't see the journalistic value in repeating what someone--who anyone can guess doesn't know what he's talking about--says in an address.

Why part-time Meredith workers get fired

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 08:41.

Maybe that one-time assistant working for a junior editor at "Metropolitan Life" when she was in college got fired not for correcting the editor's spelling and pronunciation but for not realizing that the publication she was working for was actually called "Metropolitan Home".

Content Boundaries Changing

Submitted by Martha Lostrom on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 09:22.

At one time, newspaper and magazine editors were worlds apart. Now, the profiles go back and forth with a greater need for magazine editors to project ahead so that each new issue of a magazine is as timely and on target as many of the well-respected newspapers. Newspaper editors have always had to turn on a dime, and now magazine editors need those skills to have their publications stay relevant and profitable.

I agree...Editors are content strategists

Submitted by a president on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 15:44.

In my humble opinion...editors need to be both strategist and content developers and writers. I do not believe that has changed since I entered the business 25 years ago. What has changed is the types of media they must do this for. I expect the top magazines, websites and events are all delivering great content and as far as I am concerned this comes from editorial strategist. Always has...

What content strategists?

Submitted by bob maynard on Sun, 03/02/2008 - 12:41.

Did anyone look at Meredith's Careers page? http://www.meredith.com/cgi/extranet.cgi?form=fulltime Not a single "content strategist" position listed -- but they're hiring plenty of editors.