You are currently browsing sarahplath’s articles.
Few fans of the magazine Gourmet expected the November issue of 2009 to be its last. However, a struggling economy, along with the internet, has made it hard for many magazines to survive.
After nearly 70 years, publisher Condé Nast abruptly stopped production of the monthly magazine due to lack of advertising sales and a shift in consumer interest. At the time of Condé Nast’s decision, both Gourmet and its sister magazine, Bon Appétit, were struggling with ad sales. Bon Appétit made the cut. Gourmet didn’t. Bon Appétit was offered as a substitute for Gourmet for the remainder of almost one million subscriptions.
Since then a slight margin (a slim 20 percent to be exact) of past Gourmet subscribers have chosen to switch to Bon Appétit. This seems odd for such highly dedicated and long-term subscribers. The lack of transferred subscriptions poses a hard question. Why did Condé Nast choose not to research the niche market of such an obviously successful magazine like Gourmet in order to keep those dedicated subscribers?
On the cover, the magazines look similar. Both share great recipes. Both feature articles about food, culture, and politics. However, the audiences of each magazine differ greatly. This is evidenced through both magazines advertisements as well as their contrasting takes on good living. Gourmet was luxurious and indulgent. It stressed extravagant travel and an elitist lifestyle. Bon Appétit stresses a comfortable home life, centering on family cooking. It offered complex, yet more accessible recipes.
While many Gourmet readers feel heartbroken about no longer receiving the magazine each month, Condé Nast’s decision makes good sense, especially when considering the economic forecast that sunk Gourmet. Foodies aren’t paying for exotic trips to experience food anymore. They’re cooking at home with their families, growing their own gardens, or buying local food. Despite a large fan base, Gourmet’s attention to life’s luxuries and hefty subscription fees failed to keep advertisers interested. In the case of Gourmet and many other magazines, ad money trumps readership and loyalty.
But after loosing 800,000 subscribers, it seems that Condé Nast missed a really great chance to study their Gourmet readers. The magazine may have been out-of-touch with the current economic reality, but its subscribers were still writing checks every year. If Condé Nast saw the end of Gourmet magazine in sight, why not find out what it was that appealed to readers and kept some subscribing for decades. That sort of insight would have been exactly what Condé Nast could have used to align Bon Appétit toward the views and preferences of Gourmet’s readers in order to boost the number of subscription transfers and keep those loyal consumers.
Many of us can barely remember a day that education didn’t involve every child having easy access to a computer lab, a laptop in their backpack, or both. Libraries are being digitalized and academic journals are available to anyone with the right password. All around us, instant gratification is standard. Many educators are thrilled by Apple’s invention of the iPad, claiming it will revolutionize the way classrooms work, enabling children to research and explore while connecting with other students all over the world. And why not agree? The iPad only weighs a pound and a half, it’s cheaper than a laptop, and Apple already has partnerships with textbook publishing companies. The iPad even made it on the cover of Newsweek early last month with an article claiming it will change the way everyone uses computers, reads books, and watches TV.
However, President Obama spoke less-than-positively about technology during his commencement speech at Hampton University on Sunday. He stated that the iPad (among other new technology) is “… a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” according to the Washington Post.
I’m wondering whether it would be in Apple’s best interest to begin a marketing campaign in response to Obama’s comment. Most of Apple’s current marketing for the iPad is geared toward young to middle-aged tech-savvy adults, not children or their educators. Apple’s commercial that aired during the Oscars focused on all the entertainment values of the iPad–photos, videos, games, and music, as well as its improved browsing capabilities. Yes, you can check your email or work on a PowerPoint presentation if you can steer yourself away. But mostly their marketing suggests the iPad to be an entertaining, yet intimate computer tablet.
It seems that there’s an audience waiting for Apple to notice them. People in the education system are excited about what the iPad may be able to do for students, and Apple hasn’t even spoken directly to them yet. Perhaps if Apple’s marketing focused more on the educational tools available on the iPad, they wouldn’t have to worry about President Obama standing behind them.
