John Koblin of the New York Observer has an interesting examination of the founding of Conde Nast Portfolio that helps explain why the two-year-old business magazine failed.
Koblin writes, “The appeal of these early dream-versions of Portfolio is rather obvious. Condé Nast gets to penetrate a mostly male ad market with a magazine that could sometimes look like a woman’s magazine.
“But even quite close to the launch, some insiders saw signs of trouble.
“During a first interview with Ms. Lipman and a group of editors before the launch, one staffer was trying to get a sense of the magazine.
“’None of them could clearly explain what the magazine would be. They just said ‘It’ll be really good, it’ll do what the other magazines don’t do. It’ll be Vanity Fair meets Fortune.’ But none of them had a clear idea or had an inspiring answer. I kept pressing them for a piece in another magazine that ran that they’d like to run and none of them had a good example.'”
Read more here.
