This chat board is for comments on models, mag features, events, and all model-related stuff

Friday, December 17, 2004

"ALEXANDER MCQUEEN, Stella McCartney and Balenciaga must turn a profit within three years, Robert Polet said yesterday, though he failed to elaborate on what would happen if they didn't.
The 49-year-old ex-CEO of the frozen foods division of Unilever, who took over as head of Gucci Group after Domenico de Sole left in April, criticised his predecessor's "one size fits all" approach to the acquired brands which saw them all opening stores with heavy investment before they showed any sign of making a profit, and said that Gucci would continue to invest in them for just three years
..."

The Gucci Group owners lost a lot already, while YSL will keep losing money for at least three more years - but Botox Wintour and her minions profited handsomely.
Judging by recent Covergirl news, it seems there are still plenty of suckers willing to use "A-list" queens and Meisel's operatives, despite the dreadful financial state of Versace and most of the hippest high fashion brands using their "services".
In an interview, the Gucci man says that the YSL stores "were too dark" - but he doesn't mention anything about the advertising impact on poor sales.
The buyers probably loved Gemma and Co in the YSL ads, but got scared when they entered the "dark" YSL shops - right.
I guess saying anything that would infuriate AW and her cronies is like a death wish for many of these spineless "executives" - so they choose to blame the interior designers instead.

Despite what you may be reading in Conde Nast-friendly publications like WWD or the NYT, US Vogue is doing pretty miserably on its own and against the competition - PIB data for 2004, through November (compared to 2003)

Pub-----2004 $$------2003 $$---- % CHG --2004 pp---2003 pp-- % CHG

VOGUE...289,428,497 265,471,566 [9.0] 2,752.89 2,761.91 [-0.3]

ELLE.....163,779,641 134,907,395 [21.4] 1,674.45 1,490.15 [12.4]

BAZAAR..113,472,854 82,033,699 [38.3] 1,359.78 1,064.04 [27.8]

INSTYLE.315,733,697 261,164,545 [20.9] 2,979.35 2,728.70 [9.2]


US Vogue is DOWN (-0.3 percent) in ad pages !!!!!!
In November, it was DOWN 6.5% !!!!

InStyle whips AW's ass once again, for the fourth (?) year in a row - in every respect, including total ad revenue.

Mysteriously, InStyle has disappeared from certain circulation lists, and has been replaced by (Conde Nast's) Lucky !!!!!

Lucky is now a "fashion" mag, while Cosmo, MC and InStyle aren't !!!!!

One interesting fact is that Elle has cought up with Vogue in subscription copies - for the first six months of 2004, Elle had 783,000 to Vogue's 801,000

InStyle had 848,000 sub copies in the same period, and destroyed Vogue in the single copy dept with 933,000 newsstand copies sold against Vogue's 474,000 !!!!!!!!!!!

All the tricks won't hide the fact that US Vogue and its editrix are taking another beating, even if her NYC cronies pretend they've noticed nothing - and if they finish the year in the minus column re the ad page count, it will be a major disaster for AW's rag.


1 Comments:

At 12/17/2004 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to mention that the 'quality' of US Vogue's ads is going downhill, in addition to the 'quantity'.

Just as a side note, UK Elle seems to be quietly dying a death. Ever since it returned to Hachette Filipacchi control, the overall content has been miserable, with lots of recycled stuff from US Elle - which itself is widely on sale in UK shops. I would not be surprised if the next ABCs show a big decline in circulation, unless they inject new life into the magazine.

- Cathy

 

Post a Comment

<< Home