The frequency of leadership and company shake-ups are not signs of a healthy and thriving organization. Most recently, just earlier this month, “fashion and beauty networks” were established to “help smaller brands that don’t have their own fashion and beauty departments.” While no jobs were cut, it was yet another step in trying to make the most of their resources. Then, between March and November, 100 and 80 positions were cut, respectively, for a combined 6% of the workforce. ![]() This was closely followed by another reorganization around “brand collections” in January 2017, redefining publishers’ roles as “Chief Business Officers” and expanding select publishers’ roles to manage multiple brands. In October 2016, Condé Nast announced a reorganization to combine their creative, copy, and research teams, citing an imperative for closer collaboration. In addition, each restructuring comes with layoffs to cut costs and to stretch resources. Over time, the intervals between the announcements has also shortened, indicating that the company is struggling to land on an effective organizational structure. Since fall of 2016, Condé Nast has restructured the organization several times and even closed key brands. Once a behemoth owning many of the most iconic magazine brands ( Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, among others), Condé Nast has announced a series of changes over the last 18 months that point to their decline. ![]() Of the print houses caught in the “dusk,” Condé Nast is displaying clear signs that it is struggling to adapt. ![]() Kurt Andersen, former editor of New York Magazine, summed it up: “The 1920s to the 2020s was kind of the century of the magazine,” but today they are in “more of a dusk, a slow dusk, and we’re closer to sunset”. It’s no surprise that print media has been struggling to keep its grasp on readers, who now flock to digital and social media for news and content.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |