Media Roundup: Rolling Stone, Forbes, Red Eye, Starlog, & More

Oh, what a tangled world wide web we weave:

• Not all newspapers are collapsing and shrinking. Red Eye, the Chicago Tribune's free commuter tabloid, is expanding its circulation and distribution, reports the Trib's Phil Rosenthal.
• In an apparent attempt to replicate the success of tell-all books by former disgruntled employees, an unknown (but Jeff Bercovici names names) former employee of Forbes magazine is reportedly writing an insider book that allegedly lays bare things such as a feud between the Forbes brothers. Think of the book as sort of a Devil Wears Prada but boring. Will Kip Forbes get us his restaurant review before deadline? Will Steve return Bono's text message? Who gets to sleep with the Fabergé eggs under their pillow tonight? Turn the page to find out! Or don't.
  
• Speaking of laying bare secrets: It was published in The Globe, so you know it's got to be gospel. The gossip rag published an are-they-or-aren't-they-gay list of celebrities, which Matthew Rettenmund kindly shares. I think you can give little credence to much of it (the suspicions and the denials), but it is interesting to read some of the rumors. Rush Limbaugh? Oh, dear.
• As readers of this site know, I love behind-the-scenes stories of magazine companies, especially entrepreneurial ones. (No, this isn't hypocritical; I don't care about the personal relationships at Forbes. If that book were on the decision-making and history of the magazine -- now that I'd find interesting.) Starlog editor David McDonnell provides another look at his company's experience publishing -- and not publishing -- licensed movie magazines. (It's a follow-up to an earlier article by McDonnell on the same topic.)
  
• This is the oldest bit of magazine news I can report; everyone's already published the news. National Geographic Adventure is being canceled, after a very short attempt to sell it (which went nowhere, because who's going to buy a magazine that either retains someone else's brand or has to be rebranded at cost?). The brand will continue, reports Folio:, in a "multi-platform model." So, they couldn't sell it.
• Speaking of stretching brands across platforms, Rolling Stone magazine is opening a restaurant in Los Angeles.
  

My previous media roundup.

And the Latest in the Sucks-to-Be-You Series of Layoff Announcements: Time Warner Plans Big

Time Warner is announcing a $100 million charge it's prepared to take next week to cover the costs associated with a round of layoffs, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Journal says the layoffs will affect about 6 percent of Time's total workforce, "a similar percentage to job cuts last year, as part of a broad reorganization of Time Inc. Time Warner took a charge of $119 million in the fourth quarter of 2008 to reflect severance and other costs from the restructuring." That seems like a lot of money, but when you figure that approximately 3 billion people are directly employed by the sprawling Time Warner colossus, it's probably a small amount then. It's good to have things in perspective.

Seriously, though, despite news that the recession officially ended in the July-to-September third quarter of 2009, the layoffs in the magazine media industry seem to be coming more frequently. And the announcements these days are coming from the big guys -- Time Warner, Forbes, Condé Nast, etc. I suspect that's because the smaller companies never staffed-up as much as they could have in the good times, and they pared costs more quickly as the bad times set in. The behemoths move slowly. But this seems like an odd time for the big guys to be slicing staff. If things are improving, they're going to be without experienced staff, and when content is what counts, they're going to be scrambling to provide high-quality content from freelancers and junior staffers. After all, magazine readership has risen -- yes, risen -- in the past decade, not fallen off a cliff, so this seems a bit odd. But maybe that's how MBAs think.

Forbes Layoffs Worse than Expected: About 100 -- SO FAR

Well, I wrote earlier that this would be a bad week to be working at Forbes magazine, but I didn't know it would be this bad. The company cut about 100 people from its print and online sides, and the rumor is that the cutting isn't finished.

Dan Frommer notes that the staff is only about 200 ("only" for a large magazine, that is). Does that mean the staff is now only about 100? Or is 200 now all that is left from an initial 300? One wonders just how bad are the finances at the business magazine.

More Layoffs: It's a Bad Week to Be Working at Forbes

The New York Times reports this morning that business magazine Forbes is going through another round of layoffs. This follows about 100 people who were laid off by the company in the past year. Some, a spokesperson told the paper, were laid off yesterday, but layoffs will continue throughout the week. (Note to HR people: Don't stretch out layoffs. Do them in one batch on one day. Otherwise, people spend the entire week worrying about being laid off. Kills productivity and morale.)

The culprit is advertising – not circulation, which reportedly has held steady even during this deep recession and despite the supposed uber-supremacy of digital media.

So it's a bad week to be working at Forbes -- though I suppose next week will be a good week to be working at Forbes, since that will mean you kept your job. But on an even wider scale, it's been a bad year to be working at business magazines, with Portfolio closing,  BusinessWeek downsizing and being sold, and Fortune reducing frequency.

Does Forbes part-owner Bono know about this?

Europe Now Richer than America

Who'da thunk the quasi-socialist universal-health-care-ists in Europe could even pull it off, but they are now richer in total assets than the rugged individualists in the United States, according to no less a source than conservative Forbes.

Magazine News: Forbes Goes to Sofia

Boasting a launch circulation (estimate) of 30,000, the venerable American business magazine Forbes will begin publication of a Bulgarian edition in October of this year.

"What?" you say. Why is a print publication expanding in a global financial/economic crisis? Because global licensing of American publications is a booming business, one that keeps money flowing into U.S. publishers' coffers even when domestic ad revenue is flagging. Playboy, for example, has been struggling in the United States (especially since the Reagan administration helped target its advertisers and distributors, a hit from which I think the magazine has never recovered). It now publishes dozens of foreign editions, recently adding Lithuania to the mix. And you can find horror magazine Fangoria in Hungary, Esquire in China, or Hello magazine in Thailand. If you've got a brand, make it global, and let someone else do all the work of translating and gathering capital to float the magazine. All in all, can't see a reason not to do it.

Now, no one doubts that Thai readers want juicy celebrity news or that Lithuanian readers want stories of success and beauty. But are Bulgarians really eager for American business acumen right now?