"Conde Nast Layoffs Hit Golf Mags"

This depresses me to no end...please, keep your comments on this constructive. 

Comments

[JPB]

Sort of makes you wonder what the future holds for Golf World. As much as I like GW they sure don't help themselves by getting the magazine to me so late. Much of the content is old news by the time it arrives in my mailbox....

[The DA]

Agree with above. Sadly, they are neither efficient nor diligent with their customer service, mishandling past subscriptions and mailing-related issues.

[Name 'Em]

Any edit types we'd be familiar with?? GW could lose a few and it wouldn't hurt 'em much...ditto for GD.

The original story says 10 staffers at GW and one at GD but could come from advert/marketing side not edit.

[Morg]

Geoff, may I ask why you find it depressing?

[Golden Bell]

The post said all the staffers were on the ad sales side. The funny thing is, Golf World was the only Conde Nast publication -- not golf pub, but from the entire company -- to have more ad pages this year than last year (not sure when the numbers were crunched). So those ad people should have been celebrated, not canned. I love Golf World and it had better continue or Bob Harlow's Ghost will haunt S.I. Newhouse.

[Geoff]

Morg,
People losing jobs, magazines contracting, coverage/scrutiny/analysis of the sport losing voices=depressing.

Golden Bell,
Great point, Golf World was one of the only publications to increase revenues last year, but this is a company wide Conde Nast cut so they aren't spared. But as you note, those ad people were working wonders in tough times.

[Mike]

I guess this is not new ground but there have been many many times when non-subscriber friends of mine email me Golf World articles days in advance of my magazine arriving. Makes you wonder how their business model will work on the print side.

[happy gilmore]

Only minutes ago (8:35pm EST), a snarky salesperson just called my home to offer me the chance to renew my GW & GD subscriptions at a rate 10% lower than I last subscribed at. This is precisely why it remains so difficult to sustain a "winning" business formula in today's multi-media source world.

Why should I, as a customer, want to be contacted (on my home phone) in the evening hour (interrupting family time) to make a decision I've already made only 8 mos ago? To save 10% going forward (less than $10 collectively), right? Hell no! Now I want little more than to tell the guy to bugger off and leave me alone, but he's not unlocking his flapping jaws. After a few minutes of explaining how I'm not interested, I hear him staying on script, making his squawk all the more annoying. This is the anthesis of customer service.

Little wonder magazines are struggling. My time is my most valuable asset and Conde Nast thinks I'll cede it easily.I think not. I feel for the high-quality journalists who deserve a proper fee for their product, but the internet now delivers news on a more timely basis and often at a lower cost. Who wouldn't take that over a slimy salesperson calling you incessantly at home and trying to pitch you on a package of paper that comes a week late and with such arrogance? New world, new model. Tell SI Newhouse to spend a little more time figuring that one out.

[royalandancientdbag]

Given how many mags / newspapers are having trouble or folding, isn't it time to look at why? Could it be that there is a liberal bias in almost every magazine I read? From the Economist to SI to Men's Health, I get preached at about how I am an idiot / terrible person because I am not a liberal. Look at your own Thomas Friedman piece - "Arnold Schwarzenegger said it best: "Your son is sick. Ninety-eight doctors give you one diagnosis, two doctors give you another. Who are you going to go with?" Well, why would it be the conservative position to go with the two? That's not conservative, that's crazy." Now, I can read (I cannot spell or write, but I can read). There seems to be conflicting measurements and predictions regarding the current and future climate. There is also a debate about what should be done if there is warming. Instead of acknowledging this, he says I'm crazy unless I look at only one side of the debate. All this would be fine if this was a political mag, but it is a friggin golf mag. Maybe mags and newspapers should stick to the knitting (e.g. golf) and stop offending half the country (yes I said half - read a recent poll) with preachy, "I am better than you" crap.

[Stephen B]

R&Abag,

For a minute you had me there, referring to The Economist's liberal bias -- then I caught up and realized this must be a reference to Classical liberalism (aka laissez-faire liberalism), which of course The Economist proudly is as it has been for 160+ years.

You are one bloody brilliant golf bag!

[sodface]

royalandancient: Nice hypothesis, but I think the Internet and the worst economy in 75 years have a bit more to do with it.

[Steve L]

royalandancient,
Climate change talk offends half the country? Sure.

As for Golf World, former subscriber here. It took took long to come in the mail and the stuff in it was all online. If they were more like the New Yorker or new Newsweek with articles that were more involving and less time-sensitive, I'd be back subscribing. And they seemed to once have more interesting columns too. Tournament game stories are a total waste of print when the magazine arrives two weeks after the event.

[NO Biggie]

If it's just consolidation of admen, who cares? If edit types are affected, more relevant here....sounds like all were spared (for now).

[vwgolfer]

Its a dying industry. Too many magazines chasing too few ad dollars. Basically giving away your product at 10$ a year so you can boost your subsciption numbers to attract advertisers was sooner or later gonna bite your rear.

[One who knows]

Things are tough in the golf business. Real tough.

[Grey Goose]

John Hawkins is said to have been let go:

http://www.weiunderpar.com/post/214411156/veteran-scribe-john-hawkins-victim-to-conde-firing

[Dan]

In the very same day last month, I received direct mail offers for Golf Digest for $10/year and Golf Mag for $5/year. Even SI is a paper thin these days. It's only a matter of time before this old distribution model blows away in the dust.

[Phil the Author]

Geoff,

You of all people should know that this is a very complex situation. These are NOT-FOR PROFIT publications. Their need for revenues is a matter of existence and is the driving force behind what they publish. As a result the articles are written by reporters rather than literary journalists; something that we have been missing for a very long time.

According to the article the ones let go were primarily sales and marketing people. Consider how your own website may have contributed to this. Every one of the topics you post is based around articles that have been written elsewhere. By providing a link to these articles, something that is very smart and necessary in your own business model, you are providing free marketing services for these magazines. This impacts on their own in-house marketing for if you are a primary source providing considerate brand recognitionb, their need for more 'paid for' marketing is lessened. This enables them to employ fewer people for this part of their business.

No, you are not to blame, but the dynamic growth in golf websites and blogs ahs greatly impact on the amount of what is written, the amount of magazines being purchased and therefor ad revenues, and most important of all, the QUALITY of what has been written.

As an aside, even well-meaning magazines make decisions on-the-fly because of market situations. Let me give you an example that I hope will tweak you into ibvestigating it as it actually is periferally involved in this issue.

Last fall, LINKS magazine announced a contest to locate the next "Herbert Warren Wind" or "Bernard Darwin" lurking out there in obscurity. Theyb announced that theyb woulde publish the 6 best 500 word essays written by unknowns during 2009 and they would announce them in Jan/Feb. In this issue they announced that the winners would be announced in the following issue.

Not a word about this since. I've emailed them on this to no avail and dead silence responses.

If a major magazine such as LINKS could market itself in this manner and then NOT follow through on it and not even mention it months later, obviously there must be a serious story behind this.

The world of golf wrioting DESPERATELY NEEDS a new Wind or Darwin. That one could have been found and then ignored is, at least to me, unconscionable...

[Hawkeye]

John Hawkins would be one of the last I'd guess..If he were laid off, must be other edit types...any updates? Guess he goes to Golf Channel full time if it's true...

Bill Fields is their best operator hope he's safe.

[Morg]

The majority don't subscribe to magazines or newspapers any longer. They read websites, blogs, and Tweet, Crackberry. No brain science there. Nothing to do with liberal/conservative views, nor interest in golf itself. It's a matter of what is a sustainable business short- and long-term. Magazine and book publishing have been contracting/convulsing since the mid-90s.

No secret tons of people losing jobs across all industries over the last few years ... so 10 sales/marketing people at one publication is not a harbinger of the end of the golf pub world.

[Politically Incorrect]

Several non-sales jobs were lost.

[Geoff]

Phil,
Actually, last I heard, Conde Nast magazines were FOR PROFIT publications and Golf World had it's best year ever last year. Golf Digest has been quite a nice steady moneymaker for several years by all accounts. I really have no idea how a Links Magazine writing contest has anything to do with layoffs here, though.

[Phil the Author]

Geoff,

Yes, that is what I meant to say... My fingers typed faster than I thought.

The point I was trying to make is that the magazines of golf have become simplistic and predictable with very little of literary value to them. How often are their articles about golf course architecture that would even come close to mirroring the types of articles written back in the "Golden Age?"

When is the last time that you saw a major golf publication publish an article by an architect, a major name or not, about a new hole type that he came up with in his spare time and wants to build and includes an actrual sketch of it? 20, 30, 40, 50 or more years?

The point I was trying to make when I mentioned the Links magazine contest was that the golfing public needs a Wind or a Darwin now more than ever. We need that voice that will remind us of the beauty of the game and how it entwines itself and us today into its long and continuing history.

Today there are three topics that dominbate the pages of golf journals to such an extent that it has nearly eliminated every other aspect of what the game is about. Course rankings, equipment issues and everything involving the great professionals who play it... and that's it.

If Francis Ouimet had won the Open this past year do you think that decades from now that people would be watching a movie or reading a book about his triumph over the great Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson? Before answering yes tell me why then a similar scenario won't happen for Lucas Glover?

No, the game today has gotten away from what it was and should be. A great deal of that is due to those who write about it. Heck, what I wouldn't give to read even a single golf poem on the pages of Golf Digest or one of the others...

I fear that the game will only diminish in America and everywhere else until someone realizes that the haert and soul of the game is not to be found in whether Tiger is winning another major to either gain or pass Jack, but rather that all who love the game walk continuously in the steps of those who have come before and that requires us to walk in a manner that those who will love the game ion the future will take pleasure in the same steps...

[vwgolfer]

Conde Nast spends way too much money. Assistants have assistants.It may not be like that at Golf Digest but the rest of the company bled money. And really who's idea was it to have 12 bridal magazines? Si ?

[ReverendTMac]

Phil - why won't Glover have movies made about him? I'd like to think I've got an idea. Before a ball was hit at Bethpage, Glover was doing better than 98% of the population on the planet. There's no analogy for the amateur vs. professional equality that existed when Ouimet won in the modern era, or the differences between the British and American game at that point. Bottom line: in 80 or 90 years, people won't remember who got the best of the great Tiger and Phil in 2009 because they were playing for money, not history. The way I see it, the best 2009 can hope for in terms of golf history is a random bit of trivia about Y.E. Yang.

[Warren]

Nobody survives globalization. The beast is out of control.

[Kevin]

I just hope that Golf continues the Duffy Waldorf wine reviews...that is what I'm looking for in a golf magazine. Oh and the car reviews also.

[MRP]

Gents...

The type of stuff that is going on generally in the economy, and specifically in the golf industry, should be extraordinarily concerning to all of us. This is why I've written in the past that building a new course in Rio is not a bad idea. I've wondered aloud why technological advancements are considered so bad. I take a business view of things as I am a business man. The things generate revenue and revenue creates jobs.

I love golf. In fact, it has changed my life for the better. And I love the classic courses and, fortunately, I have had the great opportunity to play some of the ones that are considered great. But if we don't re-invest in the game, uphold the image of the game, and make playing it and supporting it compelling...it is facing some issues.

I written emails and letters to other prominent websites and publications urging them to keep their comments constructive and positive. Why would I take the time to do that? Because I think we are in the midst of what could be refered to as economic warfare. When I was in the Marine Corps, we always bantered back and forth with the Army and Navy about who was better or tougher and, in fact, I've been in bar fights due to those "discussions". However, every time I entered an actual combat zone...we put that B.S. aside and worked together. I think that is what the golfing world needs to do RIGHT NOW!!!! Whether you like old school design or new school, whether you walk or ride...we are all golfers and the game is in some trouble. We need to come together!!!

That is why I've written comments about keeping things positive. Think about it...if some marginally interested new golfer gets on to, say, this website and sees confrontational jabs going back and forth and unprofessional and low-class discussions and arguments, do you think this is going to attract him to the game or push him away? Probably push him away. Why would he want to get involved with a clique of people who fight amongst themselves and conduct themselves in a less than professional manner? He wouldn't. He will stick to tennis, running, softball, etc and spend a heck of a lot less money and devote a heck of a lot less time.

But if they get on this website or some other one and see a group of golf lovers having constructive and suportive conversations about the game. They will want to be part of it. They will want to buy books about the topic, buy new clubs, go to the resorts, and subsribe to all the magazines.

Maybe some view what I am saying as an extremely marginal issue. Heck, what kind of effect does one person logging onto one website and reading one or two nasty comments have on the game? They may rationalize it away as not being an issue. But that one reader could become a lifelong golfer, and that golfers got to have a foursome to really enjoy the game, so he can go recruit 3 others, and so on and so on and so on.

So, people can be angry with me and be upset. But I believe in my heart that I speak the truth. I personally subscribe to 6 golf mags (Links, Golf Course Architecture, Golf World, GOlf Mag., Golf Digest, and Golfweek) and I've read A LOT of golf books and, yes, I buy them all. In fact, The LInks just arrived today. And I just finished reading "The GOlf Course". They are all awesome. My spending may not have a huge impact on any one of these publishing entities, but it can't hurt.

And I have been influenced by everyone I've encountered regarding golf. Good or bad. Thank God, most of my influencers regarding the game have been good. In fact, a few former pros and golf course architects have taken me "under their wing" so to speak to ensure I get the correct experience regarding the game.

I think we all need to do that with all golfers we come in contact with to ensure the game prospers and people keep their jobs and the game remains great, especially during these trying economic times.

[Geoff]

MRP,
I completely disagree. The game is in trouble because it's been trying to spin the positive tale and has too often avoided discussing issues that, if fleshed out and debated, might improve the health of the sport. The last thing I'm going to do with a potential new golfer is sugarcoat things and tell them it's all perfect. They'll only hate me and the game more when they find $500 drivers and 6 hour rounds offensive.

This site was started after the Future of Golf to generate more discussion of those issues that some of us think are killing the spot. It's not for everyone. If you want a majority of fluff and heavy petting, this isn't the place.

Now as it relates to major magazines, they can't be all doom and gloom of course, and I don't want them to be. However, golf shies away from controversy more than any other sport and as a consequence, I think that people easily lose interest in following it because it lacks some of the entertaining drama you find in other sports. A little more embrace of that drama would be good for the golf media (and I think a reason why Golf Channel has made major improvements in recent years...they cover more of the drama and controversy than they did in the past and they're a more interesting network because of it).

Phil,
Thanks for clarifying. No doubt that a little more diversity in the coverage would be a nice product of these tough times. I for one would love to see some great New Yorker style cartoons, a crossword puzzle in a weekly (and I hate crossword puzzles!), and more stories about interesting people in the game who might not normally seem like profile material ala New Yorker stories. However, a lot of what the magazines do is driven by what focus groups consistently tell them, and you can't blame them for trying to give the people what they want.

[MRP]

Geoff...

I love it!!! This is what I am talking about. You just disagreed with me 100%, but the way you did it in was professional and classy. THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!

Perhaps my verbage wasn't clear enough, as I am not a professional writer like somebody I know is, but I am not advocating fluffy BS. Talk about issues and points of view regardless of the fact that they may contradict one another, simply do it in a manner similar to the way you did it.

And I hope my response to your disagreement is just as classy and respectful.

This type of stuff is the answer and the reason why your website is so good.

I post, your respond, then I respond, in a matter of minutes....not weeks or months like the magazines do it.

Excellent!!

[Golf World Fan]

I'm saddened to read this, but it's obvious the internet and economy are changing things. But I'm having a hard time believing that print is dead. I just think it's dead the way Golf World and other weekly magazines approach it. Stop giving me what I can get online (only online it's still relevant when I look). I don't need tournament stories, scores, FedEx Cup rankings, reader polls, college results and other dated news. I miss the fiction issues, the architecture issues, the columns, the point-counterpoints and the more literary items that treat me as if I have a brain.

The same could be said for Golf Digest. There's way too much stuff for rich metrosexual corporate types, not enough fun stuff about the game. I'll always subscribe to both because they're cheap and still doing some good things, but with the internet they can't survive doing just an okay job in the view of most readers. I know it's hard to please everyone too, so I do get their plight.

Another thing: I'm not rich, but I do not mind the frivolous stuff for the rich in Vanity Fair because they balance it with hardhitting journalism. Golf Digest could get away with the fluff and excess of instruction if they also were doing the kind of news-breaking, tough love features you get in Vanity.

[Kevin]

MRP, "professional and classy" all the time, to be blunt, is boring. In my opinion of course.

[tom dunne]

The problem doesn't really have all that much to do with content--though I can certainly see the frustration of commenters here receiving their copy of GW just in time to read a two week old game story.

The problem is an advertising-based business model. Despite a lot of doom-and-gloom, and some layoffs, the book business is actually doing somewhat better than magazines and newspapers because it doesn't depend on ad dollars. I think there will be some recovery

Phil the Author talks about golf needing Winds and Darwins, and that would be nice, but in order for professionals to do their best work you first need OUTLETS that can support them and allow them to make a living. Otherwise they'll find another line of work and the consumer will get exactly what he/she pays for. Real reporting is time- , labor- and cost-intensive work. Someone has to pay for it. There are no short cuts.

[tom dunne]

Sorry, forgot to finish a sentence there. I wanted to say, "I think there will be some recovery [in terms of print advertising], but the industry has been so transformed that it's starting to become unrecognizable to people who worked in it before." Probably the "do more with less" mantra will stick--you'll have one person doing the work of two. Which is exactly what seems to be happening with the merger of GD and GW's sales forces. Not a tenable solution.

[MRP]

Kevin...

You are right. It is boring if that is what you get all the time.

But I hope my posts were somewhat professional and I got in some mentions of past bar fights and combat zones. And in Geoff's response he actually used the term "heavy petting".

Bar fights and heavy petting can't be boring...can they?!?!? For sure, bar fights that include heavy petting would not be boring!!!!

Anyway, I'll shut up now as I don't think my comments are constructive any longer.

Later!!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Francis Ouimet was an amateur and his win sparked a huge growth in the game in the U.S. Comparing Ouimet to Glover? C'mon... I will say this: If Tom Watson had won the British Open this year, yeah, I think there would have been a movie and a book about it.

I hope Hawkins is still employed. Love his stuff. Would buy the guy as many beers as I could if I ever dared to interrupt him while he's working the few tournaments I attend.

[royalandancientdbag]

Stephen B
You, Boo Boo, are smarter than the average Golden Bear.

Sodface
I agree completely. My point is what mags / papers have to do in that environment.
P.S. great name

[Hawk's Eye]

Surprised how this thread has turned into a discussion on the state of the media/golf biz. Delivery, solicitations, etc.

Wouldn't the layoff of one of the game's more high-profile writers be worth more comment?? Thought folks had stronger feelings about Hawkins, aka, the Angry Golfer....I guess it's not confirmed, and not sure why it hasn't been, but curious what info folks have on his status.

Let's talk about the people affected. Everyone knows the media industry is in the toilet. And golf is obviously not immune.

[GolfLover]

"Bill Fields is their best operator hope he's safe. "

I sure hope so. This guy is the Reason, I get the magazine. His articles are the bomb!

[Tighthead]

Is Hawkins out? I'm not really a fan, but he is high profile.

I liked Hawkins and Rosaforte better before they went on TV.