The New Yorker

[Brad Hodges]

----------

>Dan, could you give some details here?  I am unaware of the history of
>the New Yorker.  It sounds like you consider their story a success.
>What details make it a success to you, and could you also say how you
>see this applying to PLAYBOY's case?  Are there any other magazines
>that might have a similarly interesting history in this regard?

Dan will no doubt craft his own answer, but Harold Ross was the founder of
The New Yorker, and was editor for several decades. He was followed by
William Shawn, who lasted even longer, and was the caretaker of many of the
traditions. There have now been three editors in the past decade or so (the
most notorious being Tina Brown) but the industry seems to regard the
current editor, David Remnick, as restoring some of the luster to the
magazine.

As for success, well, that's tricky. Certainly a magazine that is almost
entirely text and has an intellectual bent that has lasted for seventy-five
years has to be considered a success. However, it is a money loser. Conde
Nast (which is in turn owned by Advance Publications, owned by the Newhouse
family) purchased it a few years ago as more of a prestige item than a cash
cow. Unless Playboy is purchased in the same manner, it can't duplicate The
New Yorker's financial model. Therefore, The New Yorker can cling to age-old
traditions without fear of losing revenue. I'm not sure Playboy can do the
same. What Playboy can do is take a look at the quality journalism and
fiction the New Yorker publishes and seek to emulate it.

Brad