The problems with Portfolio

Elizabeth Spiers writes inthe latest issue of The New Republic about what she perceives the problems to be at new business magazine Conde Nast Portfolio.

Her suggestion: Hire Tina Brown to fix things.

Spiers wrote, “But if Portfolio were a high-end business magazine, I’d be an enthusiastic subscriber. The problem is that it’s not. Press coverage has referred to it as a ‘Vanity Fair for business.’ It’s not that, either.

“The unfortunate thing is that it could be both. Portfolio should be a magazine about power, specifically in the private sector: who has it, how they got it, what they do with it, and whether they’re using it for good or evil. (If you’re going to write about Cerberus, for example, I have less interest in how secretive Steve Feinberg claims the firm is than what sort of deals John Snow is cutting in China, with whom, and to what extent the Chinese government is involved–something that has wider-ranging implications than the notion that some hedge-fund managers play against stereotypes and drive pickup trucks.)

“The magazine should exploit the biggest major advantage that print has over the web and that monthlies can generally do better than weeklies–long-form narrative journalism. There are huge swaths of the private sector that aren’t materially covered right now. These are stories that existing mass-market business publications mostly bypass: They tend to cover large public companies; which are most relevant to the average investor. But that’s a very narrow view of the business world. It’s fine for The Wall Street Journal, which purposefully and usefully focuses on investors, but limiting for a general-interest business magazine.”

Read more here.