Overeditors Anonymous

Anyone on the editorial side of publishing knows that his or her work is going to be tweaked multiple times—whether it's to whittle down the word count, clarify a point or make the text fit the magazine's overall tone. But Ed wants to know: At what point does the revising become too much?

Recently, Ed was chatting with a junior-editor friend about how manuscripts are circulated between the senior editors at his magazine. “I write a page and it makes the usual rounds,” he says. “Then I make all the corrections and send it around again. After three go-rounds, it’s supposed to be final, but sometimes my supervisors will make additional changes without telling me. Is that okay?” Ed had to think long and hard before responding because the answer (while seemingly obvious) isn’t really clear-cut.

In an ideal scenario, yes, the junior editor should be advised of any changes made to his/her writing before it goes to print. For one thing, his or her name may be attached to it. Secondly, how else is the neophyte supposed to learn exactly what was wrong with the original copy? Sure, a lot can be learned from careful observation, but no one’s a mind reader!

At the same time, the magazine world moves at an über-fast pace. Even the most nurturing senior editors don’t always have time to explain their notes to newbies, most of whom are expected to learn on-the-fly.

What do you think? If a junior editor writes something and feels the end product bears absolutely no resemblance to what was initially submitted, should he or she speak up or just accept that it's part of the learning process? And if a senior editor rewrites the piece, is he or she obligated to go over the revisions or even give the whippersnapper a head's up that the manuscript was changed?

Share your thoughts!
Ed

Maybe it's Time for Law School?

Last Friday, Ed got some bad news. His beloved CosmoGirl is following in the footsteps of Teen People and ELLEgirl, R.I.P.

Many insiders believe teen mags are unable to sustain their reader base because most teens want to read Cosmo, not its younger sister, and turn to cheap weeklies like Us Weekly or People for their celeb fix. News reports about ad pages flooded Ed's screen, but all he could think about were his friends at the mag trying to pay rent or health insurance bills for the next few months.

Breaking into the industry is notoriously tough, but is this more evidence that print is getting closer to its last breath? Even CG founder Atoosa Rubenstein spoke out about the industry's dire situation: “I don’t think it’s the death of the girl, but the death of the magazine, and certainly the sign of the times” she told WWD.

Everything's been hit by the recession economy and ad pages are no exception. Thousands are getting laid off in every industry. Ed's other friends think the mag world is here to stay--albeit in a different form. Ed has been brushing up on his HTML, but can't field a lingering doubt that maybe his parents are right and it's time to give up that pesky childhood dream of writing for a living? Ed hates to say it, but is it time for whipping out those dusty law school applications?

What do you think? Will it be tougher for college grads to get jobs in May than ever before? Are Seventeen and Teen Vogue next? Ed wants to hear your thoughts!

Love,
Ed

Toe the Line

In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, what's the deal with...coverlines?

Isn’t it strange that that popular womens’ magazine coverline—“Walk off the weight”— is often shown alongside teases like “Scrumptious ice cream cakes” that have tons of calories a serving? And, what’s with lines that claim to “Save your life with this health test” or “Spice up your sex life with 5 easy moves”? Ed’s asking: Are misleading coverlines ethical?

Well, in their Code of Ethics, the Society of Professional Journalists says that journalists should “make certain that headlines … do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”

Think about all the times you’ve read a coverline that totally enticed you (“Organize your closet in 5 minutes!”) and later, you opened the magazine to find three short, unhelpful tips? You feel duped and let down, right? Your magazine’s audience feels the same way. Too many false promises, and their trust in you will start to wane.

Don’t get Ed wrong—he knows that coverlines are a big part of selling magazines. He understands that they are meant to be entertaining and are a simplification of the stories inside. But couldn’t they be a little more…well…truthful? Ed’s sure we can all still write clever, persuasive, authoritative lines. Those brainstorming meetings might just last a little longer now. :)

What’s your take on the coverline issue? Thoughts?

—Ed

Moonlighting

Lately, as the economy's been tanking (gulp) and Ed's been having to count out his pennies in order to cover a venti skinny latte (vanilla, please!) he's been racking his brain for some creative ways to rake in the cash.

Obviously, there's bartending, and more than a few of Ed's mag friends leave the office on Fridays to head to shift #2. There's also babysitting, dog walking, cat sitting, personal training . . . all part time jobs Ed's friends have held while trying to climb the magazine ladder.

Finally, there's writing. Some of Ed's ultra-word driven pals spend their evenings and weekends furiously typing out query letters, essays, articles, and even books in order to rake in enough dough to cover their New York lifestyle. After all, a shiny $2 a word assignment at a magazine can really help pad a bank account. While most of these get the A-OK and well wishes from their boss, some of these staffers also fly under the the radar—using fake names or dropping bylines—because of rules prohibiting freelancing at their current mag.

Ed believes that honesty is the best policy, and talking over your goals and writing with your editor is the best way to get what you want, both in your writing life and in your work life. What do you think, Edsters? Do you have rules prohibiting freelancing? And what have you done about it?

xo, Ed

Decreasing Ad Pages Means Increasing Ad-Driven Content

Ed has a serious love/hate relationship with advertisements. Love: ads make it possible for magazines to exist. Hate: ads pay for space, which enables magazines to exist. So Ed started wondering if those producing the editorial content “owe” something to those paying the big bucks for ads. In an ideal world with unfaltering journalistic integrity the answer would be no, but sometimes it seems that ads have more say in editorial content than we’d like. Don’t get Ed wrong, he has high journalistic morals and knows you do as well, but has seen how ads can affect editorial content.

Ed’s heard from his friends how ads can drive editorial content – sometimes in a subtle way, sometimes is a major way. For example, one of Ed’s friends was recently told that a certain brand had to be included in a list of travel accommodations for a feature, and another friend who works in digital was told that coverage of a certain person had to be taken off the homepage during an advertiser’s presence – yikes, this all sounds pretty editorially invasive to Ed. Furthermore, do editors even have a say or choice in the matter?

So with ads sometimes (hopefully a very small percentage of the time!) affecting editorial content, Ed’s wondering if this will only increase with the current state of dwindling ad pages. All media hounds are talking about these days are the lack of ad pages and thinner issues, which Ed thinks might pump up ad-driven content. What do you think – have you experienced ads creeping into editorial content, do you think the sparse amount of ad pages will affect this even more, and can editors say no to this pressure? Seriously, Ed wants to know what you think.

– Ed

To Pay or Not to Pay

Babies. From Angelina Jolie to Clay Aiken, it seems that everyone's having them these days. Call it Hollywood's hottest trend. Unfortunately, celebrity weeklies are eating it up. It's become the norm for magazines to pay millions for pictures of Hollywood's elite little tikes. So Ed got to thinking: Why are the pictures so desirable? And is it justifiable for mags to pay that much -- or at all?

Ed's come to a few conclusions of his own. First, celebrity babies in the U.S. are held in the same esteem as royalty in other countries. Ed's envisioning those moments when a European princess comes to the top of a large staircase and shows her child to the press for the first time. (A similar incident occurred in America involving Michael Jackson and a balcony, but it wasn't as well-received.) Let's face it: Whether we agree or disagree, there is a demand for these pictures. After all, magazine covers featuring a celebrity and their child sell better than most other covers. Ed's not defending celebrity weeklies; he's just putting the facts out there.

Secondly, Ed decided that maybe more of the fault lies with the celebrities themselves. Not only are they allowing a magazine to pay for a picture of their child, they're also in some cases pocketing the cash. (Like they need it, right?) Ed has to give credit to Angelina and Brad for at least donating the money to charity. And Halle Berry showed what she's made of when she refused to be pictured with her baby girl, Nahla.

But as always, Ed will let you draw conclusions of your own. What do you think of the celebrity baby craze? Are celebrities exploiting their children? And more importantly, has the issue harmed the public's perception of magazines?

Love,
Ed

Does the political race equate a media race?

Is it just Ed, or is the media getting more and more attention-and slack-as the race for the new president-and ratings-gets closer-and more heated? Though Ed would like it to first be known that he’s non-partisan, he can’t help but notice the scrutiny being placed on news networks, such as Fox 29, for being what many are calling biased. Between news segments, talk shows, articles, YouTube videos, and endless blogs, it seems everyone has something to say about “what’s being said” about this year’s presidential candidates and issues.

Now, Ed knows it’s not terribly uncommon for media outlets and members of the press themselves to be placed under the microscope during such significant events, especially when covering differing political views and many controversial topics, but perhaps with the announcement of John McCain’s VP pick, many are questioning more than ever before whether the face of the media- and America- might be changing.

Between recent articles like “Sarah Palin’s Family Drama” in People and “John McCain’s Vice President Sarah Palin: Babies, Lies & Scandal” in Us Weekly, daily water polls addressing Palin’s readiness to become VP despite her daughter Bristol’s teen pregnancy, news of Lindsay Lohan’s politically-based blogs (come on!), and now constant coverage of the so-called “lipstick incident,” which recently served as the main source of entertainment for one of Ed’s fellow bus riders and her friends via BlackBerry, it seems no one is safe-and the media is left to blame.

One huge example of this is the recent boycott Oprah is facing from talk show viewers and magazine readers upset that she won’t have Palin on her show, which has now lead to countless posts on her website and even magazine subscription cancellations.

What do you think of the recent 2008 Election coverage? Do you think that the media has a responsibility to report on any, and all, facts pertaining to a political candidate and their families or does a certain type of so-called tabloid-like coverage in a race to get the story first actually serve to minimize a network or publication’s credibility by addressing scandals at the cost of the often deemed real issues at hand?

Or is it that the media is simply getting a bum rap in a new age where the blogosphere and the ability to self-broadcast have taken the center stage resulting in news (subject to interpretation) spreading faster than ever before? Tell Ed what you think here!

The Entitled Generation?

Ed was at a lunch recently with a bunch of big shot magazine editors and the subject turned, as if it often does when Ed is in the room, to "today's generation." What does Ed think about kids today? asked a couple editors at the table. Ed knew what they thought just by the tone of their question.

The conventional wisdom is that recent graduates and young editors in the industry -- the tail end of Gen Y -- are spoiled, selfish and entitled. Before Ed could even answer the question, one editor went on to share a story about a recent graduate who asked her to write a letter of recommendation for a job in her company and then when she was offered the job, she turned it down to stay at a competing magazine. Even worse, the candidate didn't apologize to the editor who'd done her the favor. Ed agrees that the situation was in bad form. But what is most disturbing isn't that this one young woman acted like a spoiled brat, it's that the rest of the editors at the table nodded along, mumbling that the story was "typical" of "this generation."

Ed meets a lot members of this generation. And for the most part he finds them humble and willing to work hard. Sure, there are some who have an air of entitlement. One intern comes to mind who argued with Ed (who you know is also an editor at a magazine like all of his staff) for several days (!) about why he deserved a byline for a story he only contributed one quote to. But those incidents are rare. And Ed believes that this generation gets a bum rap.

Most of you reading this blog are young editors and recent grads. What do you think? Do you think your generation is spoiled and entitled? Are a few folks ruining your generation's reputation for the rest of you? Or is this just a case of the typical old people stereotype of "kids today" that happens with every new generation? Ed wants to hear your thoughts.

xoxo,
Ed

The skinny on the magazine model

Ed's been putting a lot of thought lately into how the lady magazines portray women's bodies. Have you noticed how more and more of the high-end fashion titles like Vogue and Harper's Bazaar, now have coverlines that read "beautiful at any size" or "the best clothes for every body type?" Used to be that only the health mags or mags that focus on the "every girl" like Glamour had such declarations of self-love on their covers. Ed thinks this a great step forward, especially considering that young girls often grow up with these glossies. BUT when the coverlines are going in such a positive direction, why is there such little change actually inside the magazine?

For the most part, those gorgeous girls in the fall fashion features are still just that—girls. Young girls and still at least four sizes smaller than the average American woman. And don't even get Ed started on the amount of retouching that goes into covers to slim down whatever curves that month's Hollywood starlet actually does have.

Perhaps a "streamlined" cover girl does sell issues, and maybe thin models do sell clothes. (Who doesn't like to look at beautiful people?!) But do you think it's the public's own fault for buying into the skinny ideal or do you think it's up to the industry to start featuring real size women in its fashion features? What do you think, Edsters? Venting welcome!

—Ed

Did you ever doubt that you have what it takes?

Ed is confident and all, but sometimes—just like everyone—he questions his abilities. With tons of magazines and newspapers out there that he admires, he’d love to write for them all—naturally, since he’s a print (and website) junkie.

But since every title has its own tone and style, and Ed has his own style, he wonders if he’d be able to work at some prestigious titles or have enough wittiness to be funny at a certain weekly he adores.

This came about when he was having dinner with a good friend and commenting on how much he loved x magazine. The friend responded, “Why don’t you try to work there?”

Though we all know it’s not that easy to just “work there” in our industry, Ed didn’t correct his friend (who is so lucky to be in the marketing world) and looked past that snafu and onto the bigger picture: Could he work at that title?

Did he have what it takes to be funny, snarky, sarcastic, and creative on another level day in and day out? He is a funny guy if he does say so himself, but for one of the first time in years, Ed questioned himself.

Edsters, does this ever happen to you? Do you ever feel like you may not have a certain attitude, tone, or style that would fit one of your highly-admired titles?

Summer Fridays: Dead or alive?

Ah, the summer Friday. Ed remembers when he was a whippersnapper summer intern and his editor told him he was free to leave at 1 p.m. on Friday afternoons. “Wow,” Ed thought. “What a job!”

But many editors (and interns!) say it ain’t so anymore. It turns out magazines aren’t just scaling back their budgets, they’re reigning in their staffers’ summer hours too.

According to this New York Times article, Martha Stewart Living, Elle, In Style, and others have all trimmed their summer hours this year.

In a country that already complains about its scarce vacation time—especially compared to Europe—shortened summer hours gave overworked and underpaid magazine staffs a well-deserved green light to hit the beach early, and indulge in a longish weekend. It’s sad to see that go.

So, Edsters, how are summer hours at your magazine? Do you have a set number of predetermined half-days? Have the summer hour scale-backs hit your publication yet? Do you get any time off for good behavior in the summer? Ed wants to know.

Wishing you a tall lemonade and a shorter work week,
Ed

Netflix for Magazines?

Ed loves his magazines. (Recycling day usually sees Ed begging to keep ‘just one more’ back issue on the communal coffee table, and those gorgeous magazine racks at Barnes and Noble can induce euphoria.) But actual subscriptions? Ed’s allowed 5. After that, the mailbox starts to clog up, the piles overflow, and general chaos ensues. So Ed makes his picks and sucks it up. If one doesn’t work out, there’s always next year.

Then Time Inc. introduced Maghound (it officially debuts in September). Pay a flat fee each month, and pick the magazines you want. $3.95 gets you 3 titles a month, not including ‘premium’ titles. Ed’s thinking Backpacking in the summer, Ski in the winter, maybe checking out those smaller mags that catch his eye at the store. But there are some magazines he needs every month (or, ahem, every week). So maybe he’ll try a combo—subscribe regularly to some, and mix it up with 3 Maghound choices.

What do you think? Good for magazine lovers? Good for the magazine business? Good for the coffee table overload?
-Ed

Is it just Ed, or is the economy starting to hit magazines HARD?!

Not to be a downer, but Ed's gonna be honest—when all the reports came out about the current economic recession—or as Mister Bush likes to put it, a "slowdown"—he didn't really think he'd be affected all that much. Sure, maybe those suits down by Wall Street, but Ed? No way. But ever since Ed's own place of work has been cutting way back on its own magazine pages as a result of advertisers feeling the money crunch, he's been wonderin'...once they cut back on enough pages to stop the financial bloodshed, how much of the magazine will be left? And if they don't want to sacrifice content, will they start sacrificing employees like (gulp) Ed himself? After all, Ed doesn't work at any small mom and pop paper—this is a big national monthly that, well, is frankly starting to resemble more of a tabloid with its page numbers. And what about the people from recently closed Quick and Simple and Golf for Women? Did they get the ax because of already low newsstand numbers, or is the economy to blame?

Obviously, Ed's gettin' pretty nervous...but he's not losing hope yet. Please share—are you feeling the effects at your own publications?

Quick & Simple Put to Quick and Simple Death

Ed found it a bit curious when the publishers of relatively high-brow fare, such as Esquire and Harper's Bazaar, decided to venture into Bauer-land, where $1.99 supermarket buys reign supreme. But then Ed thought, "Hey, it's Hearst. They must know what they're doing." Unfortunately, not this time.

Quick & Simple's untimely shuttering and shift to exclusively online content is yet another solemn reminder that business isn't booming in print media. Ed's a little miffed that Hearst vehemently denied rumors months ago that Q&S wasn't faring well, even though the magazine's staff was denied a spot in the highly coveted tower on 57th and 8th, relegated to less stylish digs down the block. Maybe ignorance is bliss, and they were doing the staff a favor. At least they could take advantage of the airy cafeteria! Sadly, now Ed's got friends from Q&S who are all brushing up their resumes and mass e-mailing their contacts in hopes of landing another gig quickly and simply.

Ed can't help but wonder if Hearst is using the money saved from closing Q&S to help fund their soon-to-launch new food magazine, which is sure to give Everyday with Rachael Ray a run for her yum-o. Maybe they'll even attempt to entice those on Q&S's subscriber list to order the launch mag.

Whatever the case, if you run into any Q&S alums, buy 'em a drink or five.
—Ed

Fuller to Invade the Already-Full World Wide Web

If Bonnie Fuller's book last year was called "The Joys of Much Too Much," Ed can't help but wonder if the well-known magazine editor will feel the same way about attempting to carve a space in the digital world...which is reportedly her next venture. After all, there is definitely MUCH too much on the web already, especially when it comes to celebrity "news" and general women's interests.

In a nutshell, the 5850 Group is seeking to raise "tens of millions" to back Bonnie as an online brand. Her company is called Bonnie Fuller Media, is based in New York, and "will be heavily digital and offer a variety of femme-friendly products that will include, but not be limited to, gossip, fashion and romance." By the way, Ed got all this great info and quoteyquotes from an incredibly long NYT personality piece on Bonnie, which is linked above.

"Is she trying to be like Atoosa?" a fellow mag-hag asked Ed.

Ed doesn't think so. The 'Toos has her quirky Alpha Kitty brand, complete with a cult-like following, but Ed suspects Bonnie's got something big tucked up into her sleeve (other than investors!).

Thoughts? Have at it, kids.

Print vs. Web: The War Continues?

Why are red carpets red? Will humans ever live on Mars? How does Angelina Jolie always look so damn good? There are some pretty important questions in life but right now, Ed wants to know just one thing: Why is there so much unspoken animosity between magazine edit staffs and their web counterparts?

Magazine editors acknowledge the importance of having their own online presence (Heck, Ed even has a website and a Facebook account!) and even take pride in the prettiness of their creations yet most seem to shun the idea of working on a magazine's site. Some, even go as far as to ostracize themselves from their online team. Ed's seen quite a few publications where the two editorial staffs are so disjointed, you'd think they worked for different companies—They don't sit in on editorial meetings, they don't know what the other entity is working on, some staffs don't even know the names of the others! Ed wants to know why! It's 2008, people. The Internet is not going away. In fact, some magazines (ahem: Teen People and ELLEgirl) now exist only on the web. So why don't the two mediums work together more often? (Look how well it worked for New York Magazine!!!) Why are more print editors not willing to work on the web? Why can't one conglomerate staff do the print and web job?

Ed Speaks readers, tell Ed: How's the print/web vibe at your publication? Would you ever consider working online? Why or why not? After all, it seems like a valuable skill to have.

Signing offline (for now!),
Ed

The Wikipedia Question

So, Ed was just re-reading this rather interesting article from the American Journalism Review about Wikipedia and how media writers, reporter, and editors use it today. The story focuses mostly on how the internet, user-edited encyclopedia has been affecting newspapers, but Ed knows it's undeniably an issue that pops up in magazine offices everyday. (There's this funny reference to magazines, too: "And when Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief John Huey was asked how his staffers made sure their stories were correct, he jokingly responded, 'Wikipedia.'") In fact, Ed often goes to Wikipedia first when he's doing research for a story. Not that he ever uses any of the information without confirming elsewhere, but it's a good place to start. Its broad, often seemingly random information can be helpful as an overview. Don't know anything about solar power? How to weave a basket? The chemistry of hair dye? You can quickly find out and also figure out where to get the legit information.

But, as we all know, information on Wikipedia can be wrong or made-up. Ed knew an editorial assistant who used Wikipedia to confirm movie release dates for a calendar page one time. When her editor found out—at the very last minute, of course—she was floored. The chance of that information being correct wasn't good at all. You don't want people showing up for Indiana Jones a week early!

So Ed has questions for you all: How do you use Wikipedia when writing or assigning stories? Do you go there daily? Does your research department have an official policy about the use of Wikipedia and what is it? (Or maybe the question is: Do you even have a research department anymore? And if the answer is now, is there an increased use of Wikipedia because of that?) Can you use Wikipedia as a source in a story as long as you cite it? Do you think most folks in the magazine industry—most of all, interns and less experienced people—understand that Wikipedia is not a totally reliable source? Speak up, Edsters!

To the truth (or almost truth) of Wikipedia,
Ed

Here are my clips, my resume, and my Facebook URL?

Ed's pretty proud of his Facebook fan page. (Are you a fan? If you aren't, you should be....click here) But in a recent Whisper Job, applicants were asked to submit their resume and to include links to their current social network accounts. At first Ed was a bit shocked to see it. I mean, he's proud of his 300 plus Facebook fans, but he's not planning on adding the link to his resume any time soon. After the immediate shock wore off, he came to realize it's actually kind of genius to add it—putting your profile URLs somewhere on the application (maybe not your resume) kind of screams, "I've got nothing to hide." People are constantly warned to not post too much on their social network profiles because it doesn't matter how private you think it is, it's always searchable and people will find you if they try hard enough.

Ed mentioned it to a fellow editor who suggested maybe creating two profiles—one professional and one personal (with maybe a nickname to throw people off). What do you think—know anyone who's done that? And is it common that employers are asking for social networking links?

Ed's intrigued, but he's off to Facebook-stalk,
Ed

Whoa, since when are these people our cover stars?

Ed loves nothing more on the weekends than to sit in front of the TV with some pancakes and get caught up on his tabloids from the week. This morning time is his opportunity to turn it off. The time when he can forgo the eight-page Iraq feature and peruse pictures of Heidi and Spencer in Easter Bunny costumes instead. Is there shame in that? Ed doesn't think so. Every magazine has its purpose. But lately, friends, these two separate worlds—meaning the tabloids and then everyone else—seem to be converging more and more, and personally, Ed is p.o.'d. Remember the Vanity Fair cover with Paris Hilton? Or the recent Harper's with Nicole Ritchie? And then yes, there's the Rolling Stone cover with The Hills ladies. Used to be Ed could aspire to the people on the covers of magazines. He wanted to hear their life story. He actually cared about their life story. But thanks to reality shows and the blog culture, Ed's already heard these guys' life stories, seen their naked photos and their sex tapes.

Why all the fuss?

They sell. The economy sucks (well, duh) but the only thing that's not on the downswing is everyone's obsession with everything tabloid and reality TV. (What better proof than a MTV and Myspace star named Tila Tequila on the cover of Blender?!) If magazines want to stay in business, do they have to include some cringe-worthy cover subjects just to stay afloat? How do we keep publication integrity without commiting newsstand suicide? What do you think?

Currently praying that Brody Jenner doesn't end up on the cover of GQ,
Ed

Hiya!

Let me just explain what's going on with this brand new spankin' blog. See, I've been feeling kinda pensive lately about the current state of magazines and what it means to work for them, so I thought I'd share my random thoughts here. But it's not just all about me, I want to hear feedback from you guys on all of my postings. Weigh in. Tell me what you think. Vent all you want. And most importantly, please, please read me!

Gracias chicos,
Ed