<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; Conde Nast September Monthlies Lose 1,680 Ad Pages </title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2009/07/conde-nast-september-monthlies-lose-1680-ad-pages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 04:29:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>Conde Nast September Monthlies Lose 1,680 Ad Pages</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2009/07/conde-nast-september-monthlies-lose-1680-ad-pages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:38:11 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2009/07/conde-nast-september-monthlies-lose-1680-ad-pages/</link>
			<dc:creator>John Koblin</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2009/07/conde-nast-september-monthlies-lose-1680-ad-pages/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/graydon1.jpg?w=300&h=211" />The September ad page numbers are out for Conde Nast, and they are grim.</p>
<p>The monthly magazines at the company, as a whole, are down 37 percent.</p>
<p><em>Vogue </em>tumbled to&nbsp;427 pages total, down 36 percent from last September. <em>W </em>is down 53 percent; <em>Allure </em>and <em>Gourmet&nbsp;</em>are down 51 percent; and <em>Self </em>is down 50 percent. <em>Vanity Fair </em>came in just above average for the company, dropping 36 percent.</p>
<p>The numbers are skewed since Fashion Rocks, the supplement that the majority of the monthly magazines used to pad their ad page totals last year, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/10/conde_nast_cans_fashion_rocks.html">suspended publication late last year</a>. So going into September, publishers at the majority of Conde Nast's 18 magazines knew they&rsquo;d be fighting an uphill battle without the extra push from Fashion Rocks.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Allure</em>, for instance, which dropped from 243 total pages last year to 117 pages this year, had 163 ad pages for September 2008 excluding the Fashion Rocks supplement&mdash;when you factor out Fashion Rocks, that&rsquo;s a loss of 27 percent. But <em>with </em>the loss of Fashion Rocks, 80 additional pages flew out the window, and Allure plummeted 51 percent.&nbsp;</p>
<p>When the Publishers Information Bureau gets its hands on the total numbers, this is what the percentages will look like:</p>
<p><em>Allure</em>: down 51 percent<br /><em>Arch Digest</em>: down 44 percent<br /><em>Bon Appetit</em>: down 40 percent<br /><em>Bride&rsquo;s</em> (Sept/Oct): down 19 percent<br /><em>Traveler</em>: down 44 percent<br /><em>Cookie</em>: down 19 percent<br /><em>Details</em>: down 34 percent<br /><em>Glamour</em>: down 41 percent<br /><em>Golf Digest</em>: up 0.2 percent<br /><em>Gourmet</em>: down 51 percent<br /><em>GQ</em>: down 31 percent<br /><em>Lucky</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>Self</em>: down 50 percent<br /><em>Teen Vogue</em>: down 31 percent<br /><em>Vanity Fair</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>Vogue</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>W</em>: down 53 percent<br /><em>Wired</em>: down 41 percent</p>
<p>(<em>Bon Ap</em>, <em>Bride&rsquo;s</em>, <em>Cookie</em>, <em>Golf Digest </em>and <em>Gourmet </em>didn&rsquo;t have the Fashion Rocks supplement).</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/graydon1.jpg?w=300&h=211" />The September ad page numbers are out for Conde Nast, and they are grim.</p>
<p>The monthly magazines at the company, as a whole, are down 37 percent.</p>
<p><em>Vogue </em>tumbled to&nbsp;427 pages total, down 36 percent from last September. <em>W </em>is down 53 percent; <em>Allure </em>and <em>Gourmet&nbsp;</em>are down 51 percent; and <em>Self </em>is down 50 percent. <em>Vanity Fair </em>came in just above average for the company, dropping 36 percent.</p>
<p>The numbers are skewed since Fashion Rocks, the supplement that the majority of the monthly magazines used to pad their ad page totals last year, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2008/10/conde_nast_cans_fashion_rocks.html">suspended publication late last year</a>. So going into September, publishers at the majority of Conde Nast's 18 magazines knew they&rsquo;d be fighting an uphill battle without the extra push from Fashion Rocks.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Allure</em>, for instance, which dropped from 243 total pages last year to 117 pages this year, had 163 ad pages for September 2008 excluding the Fashion Rocks supplement&mdash;when you factor out Fashion Rocks, that&rsquo;s a loss of 27 percent. But <em>with </em>the loss of Fashion Rocks, 80 additional pages flew out the window, and Allure plummeted 51 percent.&nbsp;</p>
<p>When the Publishers Information Bureau gets its hands on the total numbers, this is what the percentages will look like:</p>
<p><em>Allure</em>: down 51 percent<br /><em>Arch Digest</em>: down 44 percent<br /><em>Bon Appetit</em>: down 40 percent<br /><em>Bride&rsquo;s</em> (Sept/Oct): down 19 percent<br /><em>Traveler</em>: down 44 percent<br /><em>Cookie</em>: down 19 percent<br /><em>Details</em>: down 34 percent<br /><em>Glamour</em>: down 41 percent<br /><em>Golf Digest</em>: up 0.2 percent<br /><em>Gourmet</em>: down 51 percent<br /><em>GQ</em>: down 31 percent<br /><em>Lucky</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>Self</em>: down 50 percent<br /><em>Teen Vogue</em>: down 31 percent<br /><em>Vanity Fair</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>Vogue</em>: down 36 percent<br /><em>W</em>: down 53 percent<br /><em>Wired</em>: down 41 percent</p>
<p>(<em>Bon Ap</em>, <em>Bride&rsquo;s</em>, <em>Cookie</em>, <em>Golf Digest </em>and <em>Gourmet </em>didn&rsquo;t have the Fashion Rocks supplement).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2009/07/conde-nast-september-monthlies-lose-1680-ad-pages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/graydon1.jpg?w=300&#38;h=211" medium="image" />
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
