In this month’s issue, Esquire magazine published a list of things that are “Not Worth Your Time” One of them was playboy.com, which stung a little only because I like Esquire.
But then I thought about it, and wondered if they thought all men’s magazine web sites were a waste of time since Esquire‘s online editorial strategy seems to be “port over everything from the magazine and then throw up some YouTube clips.”
Then I thought about it some more and there’s usually only one reason why you mention your competitors: They’re getting to you.
So thanks for the free advertising, Esquire, and thanks for helping me get motivated this morning – I love a good fight. Good luck with your next fancy magazine cover in a medium on the decline. We’ll be publishing original content on the Internet, if you’re looking for us.
When I was reading that issue of Esquire I noticed the playboy.com dig and thought of you.
I also noticed that there's a blurb in the front of the book (table of contents, maybe?) saying something like “You'll notice that all our main features this month run straight into one another without the usual breakup blocking. We think this is because blah blah ideas overlapping ADD culture interesting experiment in journalism blah blah.”
Basically what they really meant was that from page 35 of the magazine until the shitty “marketplace” micro-ads on the very last page, there is NOT ONE SINGLE ADVERTISEMENT. And they tried to pass that off as an editorial decision.
Don't get me wrong – I love Esquire. I've been a subscriber for over a decade. I think it's an amazing magazine. But come on guys, that is the very definition of pissing on my leg and saying it's raining.
I've generally stopped reading Editors' Notes in magazines cos they're either a load of BS (as you point out) or some variation on “Isn't our cover story/the magazine industry/living in this era fabulous?” So I'll have to go back and check that out.