Thursday, August 25, 2005

Seattle Monthly?

Thought you'd want to see this from the Seattle Times.

Seems Ms. Vogel (not Mr. Vogel, I stand corrected) has her eye on a bigger prize.

Considering all the posts we got from folks about how much they pay writers (or don't), do you think that market is duly warned?

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Ms. Vogel the one who gave Uber-tard Lars Larson a FULL FREAKIN PAGE in her magazine to tell the world how he and his fourth (or is it fifth) wife, Tina, are VICTIMS of mean, scrawny hippies who know how to dial a cell phone?

Portland Monthly is just the old Downtowner, in color.

With worse writing.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She must love having a tax writeoff in Seattle with more money lost there then herre.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not that they don't pay their writers-they do; it's just that PM's editors have a terrible reputation with the writers here: bad editing; rude treatment; vague assignments, etc. It's almost as though they are understaffed and overworked.

The high-speed revolving door at the magazine has a few eyebrows raised, too.

In that sense, no, I don't think the market is duly warned, alhtough here's hoping that she'll hire more professional and competent editors there.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:33:00 PM  
Blogger lisaloving said...

"The former CNN vice president co-founded Portland Monthly in 2003 and has seen it grow to an ad-fat 56,000 circulation with a smart mix of reader-friendly features and award-winning journalism."


I'm just curious --- which awards have they won exactly?

Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Their website doesn't mention any awards. I found this quote interesting, however...

"Since debuting October 1, 2003, the publication has become the bestselling magazine in Portland over any local or national title, by a nearly two-to-one ratio."

Can this be true? It's hard to believe.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They won a bunch of local city awards--it's in the editor's letter of the July or August edition.

Of course, that editor is no longer there.

Also, that sell ratio is fairly typical for local magazines in every city. No new news there.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is PM relevant? I've never seen it. What's it's editorial content consist of. Usually, Portland magazines are fluffy and shallow.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another thing about Portland magazines in general is that they tend to be edited by newcomers, for newcomers. The result is an endless rehash of people and things that seem like exciting new discoveries to the editors but are old news if you've lived here a few years and already know about Bluehour, Gus Van Sant, Pink Martini, the Classical Chinese Garden, blah blah blah. I'm sure there is a market for the kind of product PM puts out -- I'm not knocking it, it serves a purpose -- but as a ten-year Portlander I've seen very little in it that was useful information to me.

Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:33:00 PM  
Blogger pdx_photoman said...

>>Vogel said one of her models was Texas Monthly, long a political force in the Lone Star State, where she grew up. <<

With apologies to Lloyd Benson: Texas Monthly was a friend of mine and, Ms. Vogel, you're no Texas Monthly.

Friday, August 26, 2005 1:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

every city magazine should want to be texas monthly. it's the model you shoot for. and though i have many, many problems with portland monthly -- very inconsistent editing, primarily -- i do have to say that texas monthly didn't emerge as a fully mature magazine from issue #1. there's a learning curve. let's all hope pm keeps climbing it, because from the looks of their ad sales, they're going to be around for a while. and if they're going to be around, i'd just as soon have them be a good book instead of a lousy one.

Friday, August 26, 2005 3:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

btw, texas monthly is owned by emmis,owners of koin

Friday, August 26, 2005 5:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ad sales may look good at Portland Monthly, but looks are deceiving. National advertisers (a true health + wealth indicator) don't want to buy in because they know their circ numbers are VERY exaggerated. Beneath it's girth (mostly caused by their hefty-- EXPENSIVE-- paper)--there's not much there. Certainly no Texas Monthly, not even Amarillo Monthly.

It's true, all city mags do better than Nationals in most every market. This
"we outsold Oprah" is complete PR BS.

Friday, August 26, 2005 10:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just tried to read the magazine's latest issue, and can't. The design is terrible--too much info on one page, bad font colors. The articles are too long and unfocused. They need good editors that are able to enforce word limits, and an art director that knows how not to make a reader go blind with black backgrounds and blue font.

Friday, August 26, 2005 11:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Content is vapid and fluffy. Design burns my retinas. I can't look at it. There are no design standards in that thing, it's like someone took the bottle of color and shook it thinking more is better. More fonts, more color, more tricky layouts, yuck. More is NOT better. Question: what's the recycled content of that paper? That's a true test of an authentic Portland Monthly.

Saturday, August 27, 2005 2:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wanna bet the the majority of their paid circ. is bulk sales to mid to up market hotels that put a copy in every room?

Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dealing with the current crop of editors is no better than the last (few) crop(s) of editors. I could give you examples, but I don't burn bridges.
It's the writer's life.

Monday, August 29, 2005 10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

amen, 10:25.

Monday, August 29, 2005 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Say what you will about PM, but from time to time there are some fine stories in there. Ted Katauskus did a great piece on the parents of Nicholas Kristof a few issues ago.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:39:00 AM  
Anonymous radioblogman said...

2-to-1?
What about Time, Newsweek, World News Today, Reader's Digets, Good Housekeeping, etc.?
If you believe the bull of 2-to-1 I have a bridge to sell you.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 1:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If ted is all about writing great in-depth (i.e., boring) pieces, then ted should stick to writing and not edit the magazine.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 11:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do we know posted comments aren't all from writers whose articles didn't work out, while writers whose articles did work out are singing PM's praises? What specific sorts of things did editors do wrong? Most of the editors that won the awards are still there. How do we know the writers weren't in the wrong? How much do they pay for completed articles (or kill fees), and how fast? Also, why did the new editor last such a short time? Anybody got any actual knowledge? Obviously it's not a tax writeoff, since there's actual money being made and the ante just got raised a lot with Seattle Monthly.

Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:46:00 PM  
Blogger Ga Georgia House Cleaning said...

I look for blogs as great as your work. Fine
blog. I found your site suitable for another visit!
Search for my home based business marketing blog, it will leave you speechless.

Sunday, February 19, 2006 2:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home