When Bad Publishers Happen to Good Magazines

[There Will Be Blood still, courtesy of Paramount.]

There is nothing that will create a bond between art and editorial quicker than a meddling publisher. Granted, editors and artisans should already be thick as thieves, but when a publisher starts needlessly getting involved in the creative aspects of a magazine, there will be blood!

Take the case of a design-driven b-to-b magazine. The creative staff worked together nicely throughout the production process, but almost like clockwork, the publisher would decide to put her two cents in. It basically happened every other issue.

Seriously, you could set your watch by it and it always involved cover art. Typically the magazine would run glossy, beautiful shots of a building’s interior or a statuesque shot of an exterior ... then along comes the publisher.

This particular publisher liked artwork on the cover. But not striking artwork. She would find stock art of a businessman going up a staircase or vague representations of dollars and cents or, worse yet, flow charts! Since the mag was a trade book, it’s not like newsstand sales were an issue, but the magazine still needed to be attractive. The problem was solved when the parent company was bought out by another company and all the individual magazine publishers were replaced with group publishers.

Now, there’s a nightmare nobody wants to go to sleep for!

Speaking of group publishers, consumer books have seemed to realize that the group publisher model just doesn’t work that great. It’s like a teacher with too many students or a single parent with too many kids; sooner or later somebody falls through the cracks and ends up on the streets. Magazines are no different ... I know this lesson firsthand.

Take the case of the group publisher who played favorites. After being acquired in a buyout, two b-to-b books found a new home at a big publisher. Both of the magazines’ publishers were fired and a new group publisher was brought in who had just seen the collapse of his venerable title after almost 100 years. (This magazine, by the way, survived two world wars and the Great Depression, but not this publisher!)

The new group publisher took a shine to one of the books that was more his style because it was glossier and more in line with what he was used to. The second book—the stepchild he got in the marriage, as the mag’s editor-in-chief termed it—was more nuts-and-bolts and technical, but highly respected and a leader in its field. Sales people were taken away from the tech-y book altogether.

Guess what happened? Sales plummeted! Go figure!

Then the tech-y book defied the odds and won a Jesse H. Neal Award for Outstanding Business Journalism. The magazine’s reward from the big publisher? Pink slips! And the three staffers sent packing were not even placed in similar available jobs within the company (apparently that was against policy).

Then, of course, you have the publisher who is extremely hands-off, lets the creative staff do what it was hired to do. Then one day he gets an idea because he’s been talking to other publishers—no more sodas at your desk; all headlines should be in "Courier"; numbers must always be on the cover ... ALWAYS! And insists that the edit and art staff institute new changes or rules. Luckily these kinds of publishers get distracted by other trends ... or something shiny!

If any editors or art directors have “bad publisher” stories, feel free to share!

By Mark Newman -- Mark A. Newman is the Editor of regional/lifestyle/travel publication Southern Breeze, which covers “the good life on the Gulf Coast.” He also serves as Editorial Director for Compass Marketing, the magazine’s parent company, based in Gulf Shores, Ala. Newman has over 15 years of publishing experience working on both magazines and newspapers.

COMMENTS/DISCUSS: 11

Post Comment / Discuss This Blog - Info/Rules

idiot publishers

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 08:43.

We are a B-2-B well established and respected. We brought in a big dollar publisher with a pure-bred pedigree who couldn't find a new advertiser if you gave him a cane a dog. He can't tell you how many pages of ads to expect until the day before production and has no memory of what is in the pipeline. It's truly amazing.

art directors and editors with their heads in the sand

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 09:15.

Sure, publishers can meddle in areas they know nothing about. But I've seen plenty of art directors and editors too stuck on their own creativity to acknowledge the needs of the reader and demographics of their target audience. How often have we all seen stupid, cutesy cover blurbs that are otherwise meaningless to everyone but the editor? Do they not get it that covers are an ad to read the rest of your magazine? Whether you are on the newsstand or a b-to-b pub, you still have to earn reading time, every issue. Doesn't matter how artistic or beautiful your covers are- check out your renewal rates to get a better idea of how you rate with your subscribers.

Us vs. Them

Submitted by David Shaw on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:05.

It's as easy to find examples of meddling publishers as it is to find stories of lazy editors and uncaring art directors. And it doesn't do much good to keep building these kinds of walls. Sure, I know many publishers who were simply the best salesperson at a magazine, and who were promoted as a result. But I also know many publishers (self included) who began their careers as staff writers and worked their way up the editorial masthead, before taking on the business side. These kinds of publishers may also be good, bad or mediocre, but they have direct experience in the creation and execution of magazines. I've always felt that the highest role anyone in publishing could aspire to is Editor/Publisher, and there are many examples of editor/publishers who can do both sides of the job ethically, creatively and successfully. (And I know publishers who were simply great salespeople who are quite capable of having an informed opinion on the content and design of their publications, because to be defined as a great salesperson, in my mind, means that the salesperson in question knows intimately the details of the product he or she sells).

Clueless

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:21.

How many publishers does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. They are too busy screwing up everything else.

Where's the priority?

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:43.

The article hits so close to home. We have a tech-y magazine that is treated like the red-headed step child by the publisher (previously an editor), who reports to a group publisher. Not all editors turn out to be good publishers, and the same goes for sales people who become publishers. Still, it is ideal to have a publisher who worked through the ranks on the editorial side, but there are far too few of them out there these days. And kudos to those publishers who worked through the sales side and are effective publishers by learning to understand the importance of selling and creating. But there are many publishers—whether originally editors or sales people—who would rather pick on trivial issues than focus on promoting the magazine and helping sales generate new business. Where's the priority? Magazines face huge challenges right now, and it's cruicial that edit and sales work together for the good of the product. In my opinion, that means have sales and the publisher work on sales and promoting while the editors and art staff work on producing a quality product. Let's not have the wrong cooks in the kitchen.

"Publishers"

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:53.

Let's establish this point. "Publisher" don't publish anything. They are simply the managers of the ad sales department. The vast majority don't have any connection to ownership in the titles, they are employees just like the other department heads. Iwish companies would do away with the title. It creates perceptions of importance where none exist. As the line between church and state erodes, it shouldn't come as a surprise that many are overstepping their bounds. The subject of the story should have been this: When any person representing ad sales attempts to influence the editorial or photographic content, they are doing so on behalf of the advertisers. And that folks is pure and simple censorship. Frankly I'm surprised this topic is rarely acknowledged or discussed by any form of media. As a former production director of a three national consumer magazines, I watched it happen day after day. Publishing companies that honor the ethical boundaries control the interaction that is acceptable. Companies who are only concerned about profit turn a blind eye. To address one comment made in the previous post "Us vs Them", yes their are wall built between the two and they were put there for very good reasons. Too many people in the industry are now trying to tear them down in order to "maximize profits". The two dirtiest words in the language and the reason why there is no longer a middle class left in this country.

There ought to be a law

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 13:24.

Our company hired a publisher whose lineage would be the envy of B2B owners everywhere. The owners were overjoyed on the premise who would elevate the company going forward. He would sit in his office all day and never speak to anyone. He wrote emails to people who were 20 ft away. He never spoke to production and only grudgingly to the editors. He couldn't remember staff members' names. And people would mark on their calendars if he knew what immediate issue's sales. Here is the shocker: when the company's owners asked him to develop a budget, he said that he never had to in previous lives because it is an "accounting" issue. He had no clue about bottom lines. Despite working for top ad agencies, he couldn't market or write a promotion if his corporate life depended on it...except that it did. When he was finally canned, he was shocked, saying he had turned the company around...he did,but the wrong way.

Time Warner

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 16:15.

After slashing and burning domestic and foreign bureaus for the magazine division, the TW honchos hobnob with the l00 Most this week to prove somebody still reads them. Let them eat cake....the tables will turn soon.

Time Warner

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 16:16.

After slashing and burning domestic and foreign bureaus for the magazine division, the TW honchos hobnob with the l00 Most this week to prove somebody still reads them. Let them eat cake....the tables will turn soon.

Publisher at the cross-roads...

Submitted by The Arbiter on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 18:07.

I'm a Publisher, and I most definitely mediate between the Design and Editorial departments! I'm the grease, the oil, whatever--I keep the engine running optimally. I hired the designers we use and spent quite a bit of time explaining the Editor's vision and our reader's interests to them. Editors and designers are often crippled by an inability to give ground.. Prior to my assitance, our Editor was constantly at odds with the design team. They'd scoff at his suggestions, explaining that he just didn't understand (grids or design) since he "wasn't a designer". Imagine his frustration (and theirs)! I helped them find common ground. More often than not, the Editor just can't see the designer's point on view and vice versa. Additionally, neither department fully understands what the salespeople are facing, or the entire financial picture. It's very easy to get boxed in, assuming tens of thousands of people see the magazine exactly as you see it. I'm not sure what prompted me to respond, here--perhaps I took the article as saying that Publishers don't belong at the crossroads of Editorial and Design. IMO, this is a critical function of a good publisher. I see myself as an agent for my editors AND designers, like Jerry McGuire! I'm the go-to guy when disagreements start. I've found that we make a better magazine if I keep all departments informed and communicating. IMO, they wouldn't perform optimally if I didn't do this. It's critical to our success that all our departments understand the magazine's unique business goals and needs. My take is that Publishers can do a great deal of good by "connecting" all the departments. It's their to make sure each department's unique strengths are understood and utilized. I'll agree 100% that a "bad publisher" could destroy a magazine by doing this incorrectly. The test here is simply the end result. Are all the departments happier at the end of the day? Is the magazine succeeding on all fronts (with readers, advertisers, etc.)? The numbers won't lie. In our case, thanks to my coaching and communication, we won an Ozzie for Best Design, New Magazine (when we launched, of course)! We've grown roughly 20% (annually), each year, since we launched (five years ago).

Wow!

Submitted by Susan on Mon, 06/16/2008 - 18:22.

Obviously, some of you have never had the privilege of working with a talented publisher. Too bad- you'd learn a lot about the actual business of 'publishing' a magazine.

Your name:

E-mail: *

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:

Comment: *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image?: *