In an earlier post I compared the Gourmet and Bon Appetit brands based on covers. It was with exceeding disappointment that we heard of Gourmet’s closing earlier this week. In the end, it obviously (and unfortunately) came down to financial reasons. If ad sales are 80% of your revenue, and those sales are down 40 percent, you just lost 1/3 of your budget. The magazine could not support itself. Food Bible status, some of the most talented photographers and stylists in the business, all that is beholden to the advertisers plain and simple.
Beholden, that is, unless you use your brand to generate other sources of revenue. Food Network recently launched a magazine and soon after increased the frequency of issues. Comparing the editorial content and target audiences of Gourmet and Food Network misses the point entirely. One is a magazine, the other is a brand that encompasses television, endorsements, and magazines, as well all the advertising that entails. Each show on the Food Network is a brand within a brand. And the magazine is not just a magazine, it is complementary to the network itself. So not only does the FN magazine sell ad pages, it is an ad for the television network and vice versa.
Which brings me to the Op-Ed in yesterday’s NYT, written by Christopher Kimball, the publisher of Cook’s Illustrated. He states:
“To survive, those of us who believe that inexperience rarely leads to wisdom need to swim against the tide, better define our brands, prove our worth, ask to be paid for what we do, and refuse to climb aboard this ship of fools, the one where everyone has an equal voice.”
Ok, aside from being blatantly elitist, this statement is ridiculous. Gourmet did not fold because the unwashed internet denizens dragged her down to the depths of the marinara trench where she was crushed under the weight of canned tomato sauce and EVOO. Gourmet’s brand was refined and extremely valuable, except that it was only being used on the magazine. They were all-in on the ad revenue. Kimball even states as much:
“We abandoned advertising in 1993 for a 100-percent subscriber-financed model, including a thriving paid Web site.”
Congrats, you’re still in business. Then again, its not like you’re spending any money to make pretty pictures.
By comparison, here is a list of the things that Martha Stewart has branded:
Martha Stewart Collection Only at Macy’s | Martha Stewart for 1-800-Flowers.com | Martha Stewart Crafts | Martha Stewart for Grandin Road
Martha Stewart Floor Designs with FLOR | Martha Stewart Everyday at Kmart | Martha Stewart Furniture with Bernhardt | Martha Stewart Colors at Lowe’s | Martha Stewart KBHomes | Martha Stewart Kodak Gallery | Martha Stewart Lighting | Martha Stewart Rugs | Martha Stewart for Shutterfly
None of those endorsements in any way reflects the quality of the editorial content at that magazine. In fact, I would say that it increases the pressure on the editorial team to produce the best and most relevant content. Rachael Ray has similar endorsement deals as well as a television show. Each property increases the overall reach and visibility of the brand (i.e. more than the sum of its parts), which is always a leading indicator of the amount advertisers will follow in turn.
But, you say, Gourmet was never about buying the newest kitchen gadget. It was about the lifestyle, the attitude. The photos were rarefied and sumptuous. Yes, yes, and yes. But in a world where advertisers demand the maximum number of clicks and the quantitative data to back them up, you need to work across multiple mediums. You need to take the brand and squeeze out every last penny you can. A magazine in and of itself is not enough, and won’t be subsidized unless there is a good reason.
I loved Gourmet, and would loved to have seen Gourmet TV, or a Gourmet-brand seal of approval, or a festival, or a line of cookbooks (that wasn’t just reprinting magazine content). Anything to expand that aesthetic of authenticity, quality, and style. Anything to keep the dream alive. The thing is, the Gourmet brand still has such an impact, an entire reservoir of creative capital. It will not just go away when they stop printing paper. It will be there, still floating in the ether, a high watermark and cautionary tale. Live or die by the brand.
