Dwindling Circulation & Ad Revenue: Darwinism For The Fashion Set

Judging by the declining circulation not to mention the declining ad revenue for glossy magazines, it’s clear that both in the U.S. and in the U.K., the magazine industry is hurting. Many point to these numbers and to the ascent of blogs and webzines as evidence of the eventual demise of glossies. I don’t agree.

While I enjoy reading blogs (and writing this blog), I certainly haven’t stopped reading fashion periodicals and other magazines. I still get a tremendous satisfaction from holding a beautiful glossy magazine chock full of exquisite images and I still get excited when a new issue of Vogue arrives at my door. Whenever I travel, I love to stock up on local fashion magazines. It’s a great way to get a feel for the culture and to gain insights on new fashion trends or at the very least, how global fashion gets interpreted locally. I don’t plan on stopping any time soon and I don’t think I’m alone.

[ad#ads160x600right]
This said, I personally think that the brewing crisis for fashion periodicals is directly linked to the steady erosion of their influence over consumers. Robert Burke, a former fashion director of Bergdorf Goodman who is now a luxury goods consultant, stated it succinctly in a recent New York Times piece penned by Guy Trebay: “??No longer is fashion force-fed to the consumer. (…) They don’??t have to wait for magazines and editors to tell them what they must buy and must have.”? Designer Alber Elbaz echoed this sentiment recently in an interview with French fashion periodical l’Officiel when he declared that as far as he was concerned, the real fashion critics are bloggers. (September 2008, pp. 214-216). I agree with both Burke and Elbaz although with respect to Elbaz’ point, I would hasten to add that while bloggers are a useful alternative voice to fashion critics, industry veterans such as Suzy Menkes (International Herald Tribune), Guy Trebay and Cathy Horyn (both of the New York Times) and Lisa Armstrong (The Times of London) add experience and a perspective that is, in my opinion, in too short supply in the industry.

While there are changes currently underfoot in fashion, my sense is that they’re only partially driven by Web 2.0. The woes of fashion periodicals in particular are to a large extent the result of self-inflicted wounds. The unfortunate fact is that the past decade or so has seen an unfortunate over-reliance on celebrities to push trends on consumers in lieu of authentic style leadership. Part of what drove me to blogs in the first place is my growing discontent with celebrity-driven fashion trends. I pay full retail price for my fashion and accessories. When I pick up a fashion magazine (as opposed to a celebrity magazine), I really don’t care to read about the most recent starlet to be photographed with the latest designer accessory to be foisted upon her by some fashion brand for free. I’m also not so gullible that I believe a fashion editor who tells me that I absolutely must buy the latest handbag with the eye-popping price tag that coincidentally is produced by the brand that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to advertise in her magazine each month. In this respect, the July 2008 issue of U.S.

Harper’s Bazaar (Hearst) set a new low for the industry. And for the record, nothing irritates me more than when precious editorial pages are wasted on the most recent “celebrity designed” fashion line or the most recent “celebrity collaboration”. Come on! We all know what that is about and it’s neither style nor fashion. My personal sense is that while some magazines will eventually fold, the better magazines will evolve and survive. Consumers are craving better style leadership, quality editorial content and more originality in fashion. Those glossies who can manage to give it to them will do well. Those that continue to offer up the usual drivel will fold. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s Darwinism for the fashion set.