Ex-Vogue editor: agencies are wringing the sponge dry
Magazine creativity has been hit by the increasing influence of agencies attempting to “wring the sponge dry”, the former editor of Vogue has warned.
In a video interview with Encore to promote her new book The Vogue Factor, Kirstie Clements said that the emerging influence of PR and marketing on the editorial process hit creativity and ended the “church and state” separation between editorial and commercial interests.
She said: “Money is always the key to everything. It was gradual. Every day you drew a new line in the sand.
“The purity you started with was certainly not what you ended with. Every day you would think ‘Okay, I’ve heard it all now’, from marketing, from PRs, from clients. And then something else would come to test your scruples and your integrity.
Well done for speaking your mind.
Says Kirstie Clements as she heads off to work for Napoleon Perdis.
“Everything was much more direct way back, you didn’t have lots of middle management in between. You didn’t have agencies trying to wring the sponge dry. It just got more and more complex and more and more people got involved. With that, it ameliorated a lot of the creativity and the message.”
Well said. It’s everywhere.
Maybe you should keep minding your words, Kirstie: ‘ameliorated’ means ‘improved’ not ‘worsened’.
Don’t blame PR and marketing. Mags such as vogue and bridal titles won’t even consider a pitch if its not from an advertiser. Magazines set that standard!
Kirstie, spot on… advertisers want one thing and it’s always what readers necessarily don’t want. It’s becoming more and more obvious that advertisers are receiving certain privileges that weren’t available before… in the end companies need to stay profitable or least keep people in jobs. Once one publisher does it, it’s expected to be done by all publishers.
I’ve just started reading Ryan Holiday’s book – Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. It sounds like the situation Clements is referring to. So what do you do? A very tough situation. Do you a: keep doing what you’re doing knowing it goes against what you believe in or b: leave your job and do something else? There are some crappy people out there who will take advantage of the situation any way they can to get a result, but there are also good honest people who will always aim to do the right thing. I guess at the end of the day it is completely up to you.
Interestingly in Kristie’s book she describes in great detail about working on a story many years ago on a new Elizabeth Arden fragrance and includes in her recounting of the story that she called the PR to ask when the PR would liked the story “placed” in the magazine. It’s pretty hard to accept her gripes about the erosion of the line between chruch and state when she herself is complicit in it.
I’m laughing my head off as I read this.
There is a “church and state” separation between editorial and commercial interests?
Sure, in newspapers there may have been. But in magazines, the editorial and content has always, ALWAYS, been dictated by advertisers and advertising.
The phrase “we can’t – it might upset our advertisers” is a phrase used at every editorial meeting, at every magazine.
That’s why, for example, you’ll never ever see an article in a women’s mag that talks about the amount of dubious chemicals in your average face cream.
Give me a break.
I have been told in no uncertain terms by magazine editors and writers that they would simply not even consider writing about , photographing or featuring a prestige product I worked on, unless we advertised with the magazine. Kristie, please don’t blame media agencies, take some responsibility for the dissolution of “church and state” as you put it, as from my experience in PR, magazines dictate the rules of engagement NOT the agencies.
Her name is Kirstie not Kristie you dumbasses.
She was party to this during her time at Vogue, happy to take the money, and now that she’s out she decides it was a bad thing? Unbelievable!
But not all ACP magazines ran this way. I worked alongside the sales team for Australian Personal Computer magazine in the early ‘noughties, they ran a scathing review of a laptop from an advertiser, pointing out problems with overheating and poor battery life. Advertiser was furious, threatened to pull all support unless the magazine found a way to do a re-review or ‘revisited’ treatment which ignored or played those faults down.
The editor refused, so the advertiser walked, ironically going to a competing tech title which promptly gave the very same laptop a glowing review! Kudos to editors who keep faith with their readers and stand up to advertisers!
I really wanted to write a big diatribe about how there are lots of publications that don’t run editorial on someone because they advertise.
I know. I own two of them.
It has cost me MILLIONS in lost advertising dollars. Seriously.
Not all magazines are the same, I understand that. And I don’t know Kirstie from Moses, so I won’t comment on Vogue specifically.
But all you PR commenters here reek of excuses. If you pitch was good enough. A good editor would go with it. I can’t count the number of times that I have had PR’s tell me that the reason we didn’t run something was because they weren’t an advertiser.
No. We didn’t run it because your idea/product wasn’t considered worthy enough.
Consumer editors are generally incentivised by copy sales.
Ad sales people sell an audience. Lose your audience and you loose your advertisers. It is not nuclear physics.
I also don’t work in PR so I am not trying to tell anyone to suck eggs. I know I have a lot of super dodgy competitors.
The publish anything an advertiser wants. But guess what? No one buys it….
The again the PR gets a glossy magazine with a write up for their client. Job done! Who cares If no one reads it? Looks great when you report back to the client.
But you would never measure the value of the PR in ad dollars at the end of the process would you?
Oh. Wait…….
PS – Would be super awesome if one day an ad agency called and said “We aren’t looking for opportunities beyond the page. We are an ad agency. We BELIEVE in advertising, and creating great creative”. But I won’t hold my breath.
She took the cheque happily from Olay to do advertising on TV for them. Short memory.
Virtually everything in magazines these days is a plug. Product placement galore, just like in movies. So much hinges on what advertising wants. I’m just wondering if readers have woken up to this fact, and if they care. I used to think it was unfortunate but it is so commonplace, and with no signs of changing given the media climate, it barely ruffles my feathers nowadays.
Yep, the “ameliorated” sentence got me a little confused, too.
Mag circs have been plummeting for the last decade; hence why publishers (rightly or wrongly) have had to do everything they can to make a buck to make up for the lost cash at the newsagent. I’m certain had Ms Clements’ title been selling 100K+ then, indeed, her church and state would have stayed well away from each other. That wasn’t the case, Vogue was doing something like 30K and Clements’ bosses had to do everything they could to make a dollar and keep everyone in a job.
@Andrew Bolt & Gina Rineharts Lovechild — agree, great points.
@journofromafar I think at the end of the day people don’t care. There is a vocal minority, but if the majority of readers/viewers/etc actually hated it that much then the business model would collapse. Sad fact.
Here, Kristy, Australian Of The Year, Ita Buttrose, has nailed it for you…. magazines are BORING!!!! http://www.dailytelegraph.com......6597640802
Yet another journo who refuses to face the reality of the industry. She was punted for a good reason, after arrogantly and for a long time, refusing to be part of a solution. Now sadly, she is attempting to cling to symbols of importance and a sense of grandeur.
@BS
This wouldn’t be the same Ita Butrose who judged the MPA magazine (Then Bell Awards) for magazine about 5 years ago?
The same Ita Butrose who told every publisher in the room that magazines had lost their way and that her new magazine she had launched called “Bark” was the future?
The same Ita Butrose who outsourced the judging to uni students (thanking them at the time)?
The same Ita Butrose who had to close “Bark” because what? It was following her philosophy and packed with too much excitement for dog owners to handle?
The same Ita Butrose who has joined the board of tablet publishing outfit Reddo (the producers of the Mumbrella App)?
Just checking.
All the same. Thanks for your considered feedback
Its a vicious cycle. And as i deal with Vogue etc. You can see it straight up.
Advertisers only want to be in magazines that have credibility in their editorial. So if they say black is the new black, their readers follow it.
As Kirstie rightly points out. With circulations plummeting, and ad $’s shrinking, as all the retail businesses are being choked out due to online sites based overseas. The magazines have had to drop their pants and bend to the requests of those advertisers.
The more bending to advertisers requests and demands & advertorials, the less editorial cache.
And as the death spiral continues downward, less people want to read or buy the magazine. And the less value and influence that is in the ad pages bought.
The internet, and internet commerce has sealed the fate of all magazine and print publishers. In the USA which is the world’s largest luxury goods market (then followed by China, and Japan), their base is large enough to deal with the gradual decline. In OZ because the luxury goods market is so small, the ravages of change are cataclismic, and will not be ameliorated.