Lessons from the Past: What Four Iconic British Titles Can Teach the Magazine Industry
- Lessons from the PastWhat Four Iconic British Titles Can Teach the Magazine Industry
In 2016, while I was researching content for a text on business strategies for magazine publishing (Hogarth 2018), Time Inc. announced that its InStyle UK magazine would shortly become a digital-only publication. Subsequent analysis revealed that such a move was indicative of a classic case of market correction due to a surplus of lifestyle titles on the newsstands, with many well-known brands such as Cosmopolitan cutting the cover price to widen audience participation and outsell rivals (Hogarth 2018).
Further evidence of this market correction followed, with additional lifestyle-magazine closures. In October 2017, Condé Nast announced the closure of the UK edition of Glamour, with a move to digital and a twice-yearly print production (Rawlinson 2017). Despite being ranked tenth in ABC’s biggest-selling magazines in the UK and achieving newsstand sales of 260,422, such a move by Condé Nast suggests that the publisher thought Glamour was unsustainable in its present form. According to Dominic Ponsford, at Press Gazette, at its peak in 2004, Glamour achieved newsstand sales of more than 600,000 (Ponsford 2017). However, in the past decade, a combination of the move toward digital and strong competition from key rival Cosmopolitan caused sales to hit a downward spiral. Not even a price cut from £3.80 to £1 at the beginning of 2017 (Ponsford 2017) could substantially increase circulation to make it sustainable. In the Press Gazette, Condé Nast stated, “The editorial and commercial departments will be fully integrated” (Ponsford 2017). Such a statement suggests that the future for the online brand will be staked largely on native advertising (or paid-for editorial).
The title has now become digitally focused, with biannual premium [End Page 14] editions. It is prudent to consider if such an integration is likely to cause conflict in terms of promotional verses editorial content. The answer perhaps lies in logic. Such a radical change to Glamour UK has fundamentally changed the brand’s DNA, as the focus has shifted from editorial toward content marketing.
However, the question of sustainability remains a key issue. How can publishers avoid becoming another newsstand statistic like Glamour? Learning from the past could offer a good starting point. From this perspective, initial research for Business Strategies for Magazine Publishing (Hogarth 2018) focused on valuable lessons in the UK’s publishing history— ones that just might help magazines become sustainable and profitable again.
This essay will evaluate the four key lessons in publishing: timing, longevity, reader loyalty, and the ability to adapt. These lessons will be drawn from both historical and contemporary magazines— the Ladies’ Mercury, the Lady, Private Eye, and Vogue.
The Value of Timing
As with any venture, getting the timing right with a new-magazine launch is crucial. With many new launches that have failed, poor timing is likely to have been a crucial factor. One example of this can be taken from the Ladies’ Mercury, Britain’s first women’s magazine. Published in 1693 in London, this pioneering title lasted just four issues before folding. Deemed to be “probably the first women’s magazine in the world,” (Harcup 2014), the Ladies’ Mercury was not published by an amateur. According to Harcup (2014), Dunton was, in fact, an experienced publisher, bookseller, and member of the Athenian Society; therefore, it can be assumed that he had a solid grasp on industry basics such as layout and, to some extent, content. So why did it fail?
Essentially, it appears to have been ahead of its time. With love being a key editorial pillar, together with a then alien strategy to engage and seek contributions from readers, it is feasible to suggest that the audience just weren’t ready for such a magazine, given the constraints of society at that time. Yet other key factors must also be considered, such as literacy rates. Around this time— more than sixty years before the Industrial Revolution (1760–1840)— literacy rates were low. According to Mitch, whose work revolved around the economic history of England in the industrialization [End Page 15] era, it is estimated that the literacy rate in...
