Wednesday, November 19, 2003
So yesterday in my magazine editing class, we had a guy from Los Angeles magazine come in and talk to us about ... Los Angeles magazine. He's one of the staff writers, and was one of the first aboard when Emmis (sp?) Media bought the magazine and set about changing it. As far as regional magazines go, everyone wants to be like Texas Monthly. It apparently has a long history of high-quality writing and stuff, and is the most financially successful regional publication out there. Our speaker said that when he joined LA mag, he envisioned something like the New Yorker. Now, the problem with that is that although LA mag and the New Yorker have a similar reader demographic (white, affluent, educated), there are certain crucial differences between their situations that mean the magazines will NEVER EVER be similar. For one thing, the New Yorker didn't make money for a long, long time. That was okay, because it was owned by a family that published it just because. LA mag, though, is owned by a publicly traded company that demands a return on its investment ($31 million!). Why wouldn't it make money if it were like the New Yorker? Well, it doesn't have a big endowment to hire top-notch writers, it doesn't have a national readership, and it doesn't have a long reputation. Also, richwhiteeducated Angelenos seem to be kind of ... ahem ... shallow, and more into glitz and top ten lists than literary criticism and essays. Oh well.
Current Music: Beck (I'm going to the concert saturday, woo!)
Current Mood: snarky
Current Music: Beck (I'm going to the concert saturday, woo!)
Current Mood: snarky
