657108 Mon Oct 05 07:27:08 -0700 2009 170 33 Food Media and News 0 5079686 Apparently Conde Nast is closing Gourmet magazine after the November issue comes out: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/conde-nast-to-close-gourmet-magazine/. What a shame. I wonder what will happen to epicurious. Mon Oct 05 07:27:09 -0700 2009 91624 mhgoblue 1 5079691 That's too bad - I like that magazine. Maybe epicurious will become a 'pay' site? I'd pay, I have a lot of recipes in my recipe box there. Mon Oct 05 07:29:11 -0700 2009 5079686 124908 jeanmarieok 2 5080282 Me too. I have 1,790 recipes there! Been a member a long, long time. Mon Oct 05 11:26:40 -0700 2009 5079691 253735 bayoucook 1 5079791 While surprised at it's closing, not really surprised. l had bound editions from 1952 on up and my subscription started in 1968. When my subscription was to expire in , cryptically, November l had not planned to renew. Felt over the last three major changes in the last 8-9 years, they took away what l was interested in and felt was meh. A shame, and l still miss the product of the earlier times. Gourmet and Craig Claiborne taught me how to cook. Mon Oct 05 08:09:27 -0700 2009 5079686 71113 Delucacheesemonger 2 5093197 I feel the same way you do. I was originally excited when Reichl started, but it's been slowly, slowly backsliding since before her, and she didn't stop it, in fact may have accelerated it. I've read things in Gourmet that would NEVER have made it to print before the '90s, like the reviewer in Phoenix talking about the "unique proprietary secret recipe for tortillas" a place used, a combination of wheat flour AND corn! To me, that was a big thunderclap saying that the end was coming. Combo-flour tortillas are extremely common, for starters, and Phoenix is definitely not an epicenter of fabulous authentic Mexican food- too many resorts and chains. There's probably good Mexican food to be had down the road in Guadalupe, a suburb, but I never heard it mentioned. Gourmet isn't what it used to be. It crept too closely to Bon Appetit's style for my taste in later years. But I've had a subscription since the '80s, and I'm going to miss it anyway. Sat Oct 10 08:01:43 -0700 2009 5079791 105625 EWSflash 3 5094450 Snobbery against Bon Appetiit is so tired (& IMO Manhattan-style snobbery is....so very uninteresting and late 1990s.) Sat Oct 10 22:29:24 -0700 2009 5093197 10309 Funwithfood 4 5094571 Accusations of snobbery or elitism are just as boring and predictable. BTW it's certainly not just limited to Manhattan. People are allowed to have different interests expectations and skill levels. Time for a new song don't ya think? Sun Oct 11 03:48:59 -0700 2009 5094450 23758 Withnail42 5 5099462 Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Spot on. Tue Oct 13 08:37:02 -0700 2009 5094571 10309 Funwithfood 4 5095228 I'm a snob and an elitist for thinking that Gourmet in its heyday was a far, far better read than Bon Appetit? So be it. I doubt if I'm alone, though. What to hell is Manhattan-style snobbery? Sun Oct 11 12:34:20 -0700 2009 5094450 105625 EWSflash 5 5095244 <What to hell is Manhattan-style snobbery?> It's tomato based. New England-style snobbery has cream. Sun Oct 11 12:41:24 -0700 2009 5095228 13722 small h 6 5095311 Thanks. I always get them confused. (Nice one.) Sun Oct 11 13:23:58 -0700 2009 5095244 23758 Withnail42 7 5095763 Yeah, me too, thanks. I've tried and tried to make up word-association sentences but it never works for clam chowder or snobbery. Sun Oct 11 16:51:54 -0700 2009 5095311 105625 EWSflash 1 5079848 I am truly bummed to lose Gourmet. I felt Ruth Reichl pepped up the mag greatly. Often great stories, and always inspiring food. I don't like Bon Appetit nearly as well. I wonder what Ruth Reichl will do? According to the report below, they are keeping the Gourmet "brand" and epicurious: http://www.mediaite.com/online/mckinsey-bell-tolls-conde-to-shut-gourmet-cookie-modern-bride/ Mon Oct 05 08:34:03 -0700 2009 5079686 33755 NYchowcook 1 5079856 I just received my subscription renewal LOL! I will miss it- I used to get both bon appetit and Gourmet, i dropped bon appetit since i felt they repeat themselves. Alas, sign of the times. Mon Oct 05 08:35:51 -0700 2009 5079686 11318 Phillip J 1 5079878 I'm shocked and dismayed. I take this as another sign of the continuing dumbing down of America, as well as the economy. Gourmet was a much better magazine than Bon Appetit, especially under Ruth Reichl. I dislike Bon Appetit, and am increasingly disappointed with Saveur, so there goes my food mags. Mon Oct 05 08:41:06 -0700 2009 5079686 15879 Joan Kureczka 2 5083912 It's like losing that one aunt you actually get along with... Tue Oct 06 16:22:25 -0700 2009 5079878 54744 rozz01 3 5084858 Yes! That's how I feel too... Wed Oct 07 05:40:02 -0700 2009 5083912 63569 flourgirl 3 5088621 me too, very sad Thu Oct 08 10:43:01 -0700 2009 5083912 92220 mjs 2 5084641 Bon Appetit only features a collection of recipes & not much else. It's Gourmet which gives "class" to food/restaurant reviews and food-writing. I'm so very, very sad. Wed Oct 07 00:26:51 -0700 2009 5079878 143097 klyeoh 2 5086706 Gourmet's ad revenues (the name of the game in publishing) are significantly lower than Bon Appetit. Wed Oct 07 15:45:10 -0700 2009 5079878 131001 c oliver 3 5086713 Have those numbers (of ad revenue) been released? Wed Oct 07 15:47:51 -0700 2009 5086706 131171 nofunlatte 4 5089123 An article today in newsweek (online) says that Conde Nast has lost $1 billion in advertising.... Thu Oct 08 13:37:31 -0700 2009 5086713 108820 QSheba 4 5089154 This article has a lot of data. I thought the Vanity Fair part was esp. interesting because they don't do such niche subjects as some. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/business/media/05adco.html Thu Oct 08 13:46:13 -0700 2009 5086713 131001 c oliver 5 5092070 Thanks QSheba and c_oliver! I noticed that this year's September Vogue was considerably thinner this year (usually the Sept. issue is the only thing that Anna Wintour likes to see "fat"). This is interesting. I must say that I am saddenedby the demise of Gourmet--it wasn't my cup of tea (to use a food-related cliché) but it was an icon. Fri Oct 09 15:09:55 -0700 2009 5089154 131171 nofunlatte 1 5079890 I was sad to hear this--my first reaction was to feel bad for Ruth Reichl, whose books I've loved. But I can't say I'll miss the magazine itself much, based on the content in recent issues. I've had the moldy quince issue on the coffee table for weeks and every time I pick it up, I can't find much that holds my interest. The recipes are too esoteric and meat-centric for my household. Saveur is a better read and Bon Appetit, Veg Times and Martha Stewart have recipes more to my taste. Mixed feelings, but I'm very sad so many people are going to lose their jobs. Mon Oct 05 08:46:46 -0700 2009 5079686 100412 newhavener07 2 5082384 The quince (i.e. harvest) issue was fantastic, and not at all meat-centric! I was really wowed by this issue and have made several great recipes out of it. The best of the lot was the Japanese turnips in miso butter (cooked with the greens, which are out of this world). I also liked the bulgur with herbs, plum-pluot compote (topping for poppy-seed pound cake, which I didn't make yet), the creamed corn recipe, the bevy of beans recipe, etc. It helped me use all the great stuff I'm finding at my farmer's market. Bon Appetit blows; it's so lame that they kept that over Gourmet. Tue Oct 06 07:32:01 -0700 2009 5079890 12377 bella_sarda 1 5079913 so sad and go figure. I just discontinued my subscriptions to both Bon Appetit and Saveur and renewed my Gourmet. I always found Gourmet to be a better read than the aforementioned. Shame. Mon Oct 05 08:54:59 -0700 2009 5079686 108629 HabaneroJane 1 5079918 I'm also shocked and dismayed. I really liked the direction Gourmet has been heading, with its in-depth food journalism articles in addition to recipes. Mon Oct 05 09:03:14 -0700 2009 5079686 12327 PegS 1 5079935 I'm not too surprised either. I have a subscription, but only because it was $5 on Amazon and I needed something to use up a gift certificate. I wouldn't have gotten it otherwise. It isn't the same as it was in the late 80s/early 90s... if it was then I would miss it more. Really, I'm just more into Bon Appetit and Food&Wine. Mon Oct 05 09:13:39 -0700 2009 5079686 149592 iluvcookies 1 5080122 I'm bummed, and not interested in Bon App for whatever reason. I think Gourmet was getting better under Reichl too. Wonder what happens to the PBS series...even tho they're keeping The Brand, seems unlikely to continue, no? Note to newhavener07, quince are wooly like that. It wasn't moldy. I thought that was a particularly beautiful spare cover... Mon Oct 05 10:23:07 -0700 2009 5079686 11989 pitu 1 5080253 scratch that "Gourmet magazine will cease monthly publication, but we will remain committed to the brand, retaining Gourmet's book publishing and television programming, and Gourmet recipes on Epicurious.com. We will concentrate our publishing activities in the epicurean category on Bon Appétit. " Mon Oct 05 11:14:53 -0700 2009 5079686 11989 pitu 2 5080309 Glad to hear their recipes aren't disappearing from epicurious.com. Mon Oct 05 11:36:18 -0700 2009 5080253 10532 LindaWhit 3 5083617 Me too! I had maybe 20+ years worth, including those binders, and was totally overwhelmed after moving them from home to home, and being unable to find a good way to make a searchable database of recipes. Almost cancelled, rather than throw them and the recipes away. Then came epicurious, and like so much prozac, it allowed me to let go with abandon!.....except for the Thanksgiving ones.... And my daughter is going to choose a career in journalism...Good thing her school also publsihes an online newspaper... Here's a link to a story... http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1928274,00.html Anybody know what will happen to subscriptions? Tue Oct 06 14:23:06 -0700 2009 5080309 39504 Shrinkrap 4 5088948 It's official "subscribers can look forward to receiving Bon Appetit magazine for the remainder of their subscription. " Thu Oct 08 12:36:57 -0700 2009 5083617 39504 Shrinkrap 5 5089217 What about cancelling and getting your money back if you don't want BA? (I don't subscribe to either; just curious.) Thu Oct 08 14:06:31 -0700 2009 5088948 10532 LindaWhit 1 5080268 Very surprising that this has happened. Mon Oct 05 11:23:08 -0700 2009 5079686 23758 Withnail42 2 5080300 I was very sad to hear this today. I got my "start" as a Foodie by reading the bound editions of 1960s and 70s Gourmet that my neighbor kept in her den. Back then, it was the only food magazine around. Bon Appetit is getting thinner all the time, Food and Wine prevails, but Saveur will probably become my new favorite. Its the only one I actually collect (just too much good stuff to toss it after I've read it). Mon Oct 05 11:33:32 -0700 2009 5080268 102895 Cheflambo 3 5113390 I love Saveur!! I liked Gourmet and am sad they are going under, but Saveur has been my go to magazing for a couple of years now. I don't think there has been an issue yet that I haven't cooked at least one recipe from. Sun Oct 18 20:08:13 -0700 2009 5080300 290845 KristieB 1 5080297 I am not surprised to see any print publication close. While you cannot get the same effect without glossy photos, more and more people are turning to the internet for both news and entertainment. It is also a more economical way to publish. Printing costs are huge. Mon Oct 05 11:32:57 -0700 2009 5079686 76025 mojoeater 2 5080438 Gourmet was losing money because its advertising numbers were way down (by 50% second quarter this year over last year). for glossy magazines, it is all about ad pages. That's how their success is counted in the industry, as much or more than circulation. Gourmet has circulation of nearly a million, but that's not the relevant number, apparently. Mon Oct 05 12:17:38 -0700 2009 5080297 10074 Caitlin McGrath 3 5082325 I'm aware of the ad revenue factor, having worked in publishing for many years. More and more businesses are pulling print out of their advertising budget and putting it into internet marketing. A million circulation means printing about 400k copies. Subscription money doesn't even scratch the surface of that expense. Tue Oct 06 07:14:23 -0700 2009 5080438 76025 mojoeater 1 5080337 i'm really bummed about this, it probably the most exciting day of the month when we get gourmet in the mail. i actually pulled out a bunch of my old issues the other day and laid around reading the articles. i found the magazine to be a great way of someone (me) living just barely above the poverty line in rural vermont to learn about the latest innovative cooks, ingredients and methods which they would not have easy access to. i'm assuming they'll switch my subscription over to the other conde nast food magazine, how is it? Mon Oct 05 11:45:54 -0700 2009 5079686 280729 andrewpb33 1 5080349 This is sad and somewhat shocking, mostly because they kept Bon Apetit and are closing Gourment. They had consultants look at this. My guess is that Gourmet costs much more to produce. I enjoyed the articles in Gourmet and although not all of the recipes were practical for regular use, many were. And, the harder recipes always gave you something to aspire to and/or stretch your skills. Mon Oct 05 11:48:59 -0700 2009 5079686 56815 pemma 2 5085961 Blame McKinsey. They were the ones advising the publisher. Would n't it make sense to try to sell the magazine instead of just closing it??? Wed Oct 07 11:56:44 -0700 2009 5080349 61047 jwg 3 5088197 Perhaps they didn't sell because they realize there's still value in the Gourmet brand. It's just going to become an on-line presence (and, ostensibly, a cookbook publisher). Now, the Gourmet brand is one very tarnished, battered mark. We'll have to see if Conde Nast screws it up or not. Your question made me wonder why they didn't offer the magazine to the folks at Wine Spectator/Cigar Afficionado. I receive their magazine for restaurant professionals, Food Arts, and must say that it's as close as a magazine comes to the old-school Gourmet understated yet rich-in-information, elegant kinda vibe. Thu Oct 08 08:34:27 -0700 2009 5085961 270888 shaogo 2 5086714 BA hasn't lost as many ad dollars. Wed Oct 07 15:47:55 -0700 2009 5080349 131001 c oliver 3 5087979 Well, BA lost almost as many. There's a graphic in a Wall St. Journal article from Tuesday, and the slopes look almost equally steep for BA and Gourmet. Also, from another WSJ article the same day, "Gourmet's circulation has remained at or near its peak for the past decade, at 978,000 as of the end of June, though newsstand sales plunged 25% from the year-earlier month." I'm sure the switch from newsstand sales to subscriptions (heavily discounted to retain circulation) lost them lots of revenue. Not sure what has happened to Bon Appetit's circulation, newsstand sales, subscriptions, etc. Clearly it was not just based on ad revenues, but on future potential. Sad that they think Gourmet just couldn't survive in the long run, but that BA could. Thu Oct 08 07:25:07 -0700 2009 5086714 12377 bella_sarda 4 5087991 I don't disagree with you really. I think the future of print media is more than a slippery slope. A mudslide that's already started. I believe in five years, we won't recognize the landscape. I don't know that that's a bad thing. I DO believe in a free market. Thu Oct 08 07:29:28 -0700 2009 5087979 131001 c oliver 1 5080365 I am just stunned. Probably more than anything else, I credit Gourmet with teaching me how to cook and with broadening my culinary horizons. Not to be melodramatic, but I feel like a small part of me has died. That's not even taking into account all the great food writing published there. Bon Appetit is fine, but it really isn't the same--they weren't publishing David Foster Wallace essays, to be sure.. Between this and my wife's favorite mag (Domino) shutting down, it really has been a year full of bad news on the publishing front. Mon Oct 05 11:53:55 -0700 2009 5079686 21142 abstractpoet 1 5080387 It is truly a sad day. I got my first Gourmet magazine in 1971 and until my divorce had every issue from 1978 until then. Many great meals and lots of inspiration for adventurous cooking has come from there. I just got their new cookbook in the mail Saturday, and now they are gone. I am sure Ruth will surface somewhere else, but every month will be missing a special day. Mon Oct 05 12:02:04 -0700 2009 5079686 62541 phneale 2 5083623 Did you have to give some up in a divorce settlement? Deep! Tue Oct 06 14:26:28 -0700 2009 5080387 39504 Shrinkrap 1 5080411 Yes, this makes me really sad. While I love flipping through Gourmet for the photos and layouts, if I'm brutally honest with myself I have to admit that I've kept buying it for the past year for posterity's sake. Although Jane & Michael Stern's column is always fun to read, and I have enjoyed the food politics slant going on lately, I can only remember a handful of recipes that I've made from an issue in the past year or so. I feel bad for Ruth Reichl, who I have the feeling was keeping this thing going through sheer force of will. But really, did you see November's Bon Appetit? I've already made the Pumpkin Cake, Roasted Apples & Onions, my sister made Molly Wizenberg's Bread Pudding, and I'm making the Potato Fennel Gratin this week. Head to head, Gourmet's amazing art direction just can't compete when there's not really a single recipe I'm dying to try in an issue. Mon Oct 05 12:08:35 -0700 2009 5079686 76619 sgogo 1 5080456 Just have to add my words that this is very sad. For so long, Gourmet was the standard bearer for serious cooks. Can't they just put the magazine on hiatus until the economy turns around?? This darn recession won't last forever! Mon Oct 05 12:23:44 -0700 2009 5079686 10827 Bookistan 1 5080490 I'm very sad about this; much prefer Gourmet to Bon Appétit, though the latter has done some good "theme" issues. Newhavener, I do a lot of vegetarian cooking (though I'm not vegetarian) and can't abide Vegetarian Times. Meat-centred or not, I found a much better exploration of meat-free foods in Gourmet than Vegetarian Times ever did, and recently good coverage of food and environmental issues as well. Find most Veg Times recipies tasteless and dull. Mon Oct 05 12:33:29 -0700 2009 5079686 84119 lagatta 1 5080633 I'm so, so sad to hear that Gourmet will close down. I really look forward to the magazine in the mail every month. I've recently cleared out all my "old" magazines from my pantry, but kept every single one of the Gourmet magazines because they are so full of wonderful information and recipes. Mon Oct 05 13:17:46 -0700 2009 5079686 88792 jazzy77 1 5080668 I'm broken hearted. 70 years. I think we need some continuity in life. It was the first and I still loved seeing it in my mailbox each month. Mon Oct 05 13:29:09 -0700 2009 5079686 28006 Jennalynn 1 5080691 Wah!!!! :-( I, too, have been an epicurious member for a long, long time and have lots of recipes in my online recipe box. Ugh. As a child, I remember my mom reading her Gourmet mags - I loved tha we both shared an interest in the same magazine. Very sad. Mon Oct 05 13:34:58 -0700 2009 5079686 71241 lynnlato 1 5080692 WOW: The news-shock came via comcast and then I couldn't find the news clip again. But... you guys are on top of the stuff. Been a Gourmet subscriber for MANY years, quit a few times, then went back. I almost always found some thing of interest. Donated many old copies to our local library and only have 2009s' left. Found wonderful resources in the magazine (recipes, tools, etc. as I baked my daughter's wedding cake). Wonder what will happen to those of us who still have a couple of years on our subscriptions? I recently bought a copy of Fine Cooking Magazine (Taunton Press?) and found it reasonably satisfying. Lot of questions to be answered - nice to hear someone said Epicurious will sustain??? Got lots of recipes stored there too! Time marches on. Never did think their "professional" food photographs were the best. My husband and I used to critique them. Out of focus, not sharp, flat, no dimension, picky, picky. Thought we could do the photos better. But I'll miss getting it each month. I always enjoyed Ruth Reichl's writing. Mon Oct 05 13:35:04 -0700 2009 5079686 1107996 4culiniarians 2 5087018 I wondered if someone would mention Fine Cooking - that's been my go to for the last six or seven years. Excellent technical articles, and lots of interesting recipes. I didn't like Gourmet under Reichl - not its layout, not its recipes, and not its politics. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise; when this recession ends (as all recessions do), maybe Gourmet will be reborn with a new editor who can revive its old spirit. Wed Oct 07 17:58:34 -0700 2009 5080692 1104506 FrankD 3 5087703 I guess the economy has something to do with it but I think the main problem, as it is for all print media, is the internet. Newspapers are dropping like flies. And I think disseminators (is that a word?) of information are going to have to get with the program and sell what the internet generation wants. One of our daughters works in advertising in the media analysis area and they are dealing with this ALL the time. Thu Oct 08 04:55:02 -0700 2009 5087018 131001 c oliver 3 5087984 I've been a subscriber to Fine Cooking for a while, and I see it as a very different type of mag from Gourmet. I think there is room for both. Although I'm not at all happy with the redesign of Fine Cooking and the dumbing down. Notice they even changed the tag line from "For people who love to cook" to "We bring out the cook in you". The latter line seems to indicate that you don't already love to cook, but the magazine will coax you to enjoy it, and that seems to me a very different type of person, and I've already noticed a difference in content and density of writing. Haven't you? Thu Oct 08 07:27:38 -0700 2009 5087018 12377 bella_sarda 1 5080786 Looks like Gourmet will remain a part of Epicurious. Here's how it went down to staffers: http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/conde-nasts-black-monday-memo-8237 Mon Oct 05 14:04:29 -0700 2009 5079686 28006 Jennalynn 2 5080800 Is it possible Ruth didn't know? She tweeted today she's "in shock" and has been travelling all over kingdom come for the summer and early fall -- presumably doing research. Something is weird. Mon Oct 05 14:15:59 -0700 2009 5080786 10232 yumyum 3 5080898 Absolutely. That kind of hammer comes down hard and fast. I'm a little disturbed that she's packing (according to that Tweet) - or maybe the reference is to the operation as a whole. I really appreciated Reichl as an editor there - like this essay by Edna Lewis "What Is Southern" published last year http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2008/01/whatissouthern_lewis The tweet in question, for those not on Twitter "Thank you all SO much for this outpouring of support. It means a lot. Sorry not to be posting now, but I'm packing. We're all stunned, sad." Mon Oct 05 15:09:47 -0700 2009 5080800 11989 pitu 4 5084761 She probably really is packing since they have surely put the November issue to bed a while ago. I'm just sad that they're not at least doing a final Christmas issue before they fold. I always used their Christmas issue along with Martha Stewart's to plan my holiday menu. I guess it saves them the cost of another photo shoot, print run and sales and editorial effort. RIP Gourmet. Joanne Wed Oct 07 04:30:16 -0700 2009 5080898 109328 JoJo5 5 5084881 She has to pack as Conde Nasty gave people 48 hours to vacate the premises. Wed Oct 07 05:57:24 -0700 2009 5084761 23758 Withnail42 6 5084894 And from a link that someone else posted, it sounds like they took a good bit of wine (from the office) for a magazine funeral party at someone's house the first night. But I guess they'll be cleaned out by today. Wed Oct 07 06:00:10 -0700 2009 5084881 10532 LindaWhit 7 5085921 Pretty sure the funeral party was at Ruth's house, based on her Twitter. She also said they had shot photos through their April issue. Wed Oct 07 11:44:41 -0700 2009 5084894 10669 Amuse Bouches 8 5085932 I read that later (at NYT site)...couldn't remember when I initially posted. Wed Oct 07 11:46:46 -0700 2009 5085921 10532 LindaWhit 1 5080890 Whether or not a food mag reader prefers one over another or loves them all, it is another nail in the coffin of print publishing. I just wonder how big a bonus Conde Nast Charles H. Townsend is getting for this cost-cutting measure. As for whether Ruth Reichl knew or didn't know, I'm betting she got the word very shortly before everyone else did. She has traveled a lot since she became ed-in-chief, because has also served as the public face of 'Gourmet.' I have heard her speak at least three times at various conventions and events. Mon Oct 05 15:07:19 -0700 2009 5079686 54833 ClaireWalter 1 5080892 This is truly sad! I've been a subscriber off and on for many, many years. I've also collected every Best of Gourmet annual cookbook since 1986. The last one I received was The Best of Gourmet 2007. Does anyone know if they did a 2008 edition? I've done a lot of searching but I can't seem to find if one ever existed. Mon Oct 05 15:08:02 -0700 2009 5079686 52023 justalex 1 5080966 suuuuuuuuuuccckkkks !!! I read this earlier today and couldn't believe that something so tried and true would be tossed. Bon Appetit seems to have come around from that disastrous revamp somewhat, and i'm liking it again, but alot of the recipes seem simpler and not as challenging. Maybe it's just me, but Bon Appetit seems to have more "everyday" type recipes lately, along with family / kid centric stuff, and Gourmet leans more towards it's namesake, and challenges the cook more. I have one of the books, and use the site all the time, but it's just not the same as getting that nice glossy mag in the mail every month . I think I truly discovered my joy of cooking in these magazines, have been subscribing to both for a few years now, and have kept every copy. What will happen with all the subscriptions that are only part way through the year ? :( Mon Oct 05 15:34:22 -0700 2009 5079686 153184 im_nomad 1 5081306 I am extremely upset over this. There is no fall back to go to once Gourmet is gone. Bon Appetit is complete drivel compared to Gourmet. I wish that there was a way for them to do it as an online-only magazine instead of killing it completely. This is a sad day and quite a heavy blow to foodies everywhere. Mon Oct 05 18:04:56 -0700 2009 5079686 28784 Erika RollerGirl 2 5081335 I agree. I can't bring myself to read Bon Appetit. It's just not on par. And I find it ironic, since much of the complaints I've read here are for the abundance of advertising, that Gourmet would fold due to poor ad revenues. It's ad pages seemed to healthy to me. What a shame. Mon Oct 05 18:15:09 -0700 2009 5081306 12513 Divamac 3 5081370 Ad pages are absolutely down, for a host of structural reasons, but I think many of us have been bothered for a long time with the way those pages are designed and placed--it's often impossible to distinguish ads from editorial, or even to find a folio. I stopped reading travel glossies years ago when I simply could not find what I was looking to read, and kept turning into pages and pages of editorial-looking ads from cruise lines. Mon Oct 05 18:32:34 -0700 2009 5081335 249467 bob96 4 5081391 The "problem" of advertising that looks like editorial is just the way things are these days. They are called "advertorials". I used to buy advertising for a technology company, and once the editorial guidelines loosened up to attract all-important ad dollars, you can bet that I was very happy to submit multi-page ads that bordered on editorial with the intent of blurring the lines. That's business. While it hasn't managed to save many titles, it was and is an honest attempt to keep pubs going while they figure out how to monetize their online entities. Mon Oct 05 18:42:58 -0700 2009 5081370 12513 Divamac 5 5081773 I agree, of course, but that doesn't mean it works for all media, or that it does not drive at least some readers away. Especially in travel media, with its very fine line between fresh reporting and stale junkets, excessive advertorialing can cancel the independent voice and judgment we've sometimes bought these books for. The web, naturally, changes this relationship, while creating its own user challenges. Mon Oct 05 22:29:10 -0700 2009 5081391 249467 bob96 1 5081380 What a silly and shortsighted decision on Conde Nast's part. Kill the brand that's doing interesting things -- books, a TV show, interesting and original writing -- and leave stodgy old Bon Appetit in place. And what an awful way to do it. I could certainly understand taking Gourmet online-only, but to axe the editorial staff seems inane. Surely they could have merged Gourmet's staff with Bon Appetit in a way that preserved some of the talent. The future of food journalism will not be written by companies who need McKinsey to tell them what to publish. Conde Nast has shown itself as a dinosaur, soon to be extinct. Mon Oct 05 18:38:12 -0700 2009 5079686 23882 dtremit 1 5081643 Yea, I'm super surprised to see Gourmet fail. Never thought this could happen to such a staple in the food magazine business. I think their ads got extremely upscale. Cruises, fancy travel destinations. What draws me to a food magazine is it's content .. accessible recipes that scream " wow - I want to make that ! " New ways with tired dishes, local interesting ingredients, healthier choices. Saveur is fine, not enough recipes, great international photos though. To close .. as a reader and a REAL cook , I don't want to be treated like a moron from any food magazine. Challenge me with fabulous recipes, I am insulted with all the thirty minute (or ten minute ) recipes. Anyone get Donna Hay from Australia ?? The best one BY FAR !! Mon Oct 05 20:49:01 -0700 2009 5079686 59030 chefkk 1 5081914 I first started reading GOURMET when I was 9 and Daddystated bringing them home. I went through all the old issues, then got a subscription, then the binders etc I am not at all surprised that GOURMET has ended its run. The magazine morphed from an elegant, beautiful magazine with great recipes and wonderful travel articles to a partisan political read. GOURMET had readers from all over America, of all ages, and all over the world. We all loved it for the food, and do not want politics with out food. When GOURMET became a foodie fad magazine, it lost a great many readers. Gone were the beautifully set tables, the wonderful menus and meals. It became just another yuppie mag for elites, instead of THE magazine for people who love food, and love to cook and entertain. Tue Oct 06 01:00:26 -0700 2009 5079686 10838 Fleur 2 5081972 Exactly my point in earlier post, whether they changed to get a younger and different audience or what, they changed and they lost me, and l unfortunately lost them the way l wanted them to remain. Tue Oct 06 03:18:55 -0700 2009 5081914 71113 Delucacheesemonger 1 5081951 I am in shock and dismay that Conde Nast would choose to drop Gourmet and keep BA.........without doubt an inferior publication on all fronts. I get them all...........Saveur, Food & Wine, Cuisine, Cooking Light, Bon Appetit, Cooks, but the only one I anticipated was Gourmet. The photography was stunning and Ruth's editorial was the first thing Id go for. Yes, the recipes were challenging, not for the average. But isnt challenge what makes us better, more accomplished? I wish they'd set a precident and go 100% online...........make it a green issue.............make it a pay site, Id pay. What a shame. Tue Oct 06 02:42:31 -0700 2009 5079686 252182 FlaFoodie2008 1 5081971 For better or worse, CHOW is partially responsible,. This AP obit points a finger at social networking and viral internet for the lessening of print's influence in food journalism. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/05/conde-nast-closes-beloved-gourmet-magazine-and-three-others/ Tue Oct 06 03:14:14 -0700 2009 5079686 167806 louuuuu 2 5082373 I am just so terribly sad. I just heard Ruth Reichl speak in Portland last week, & she was phenomenal. I just love her. Wish her the best of everything.....she deserves it. Tue Oct 06 07:29:24 -0700 2009 5081971 138693 SusieS 3 5083929 Perhaps she'll get back to writing - I thoroughly enjoyed Garlic & Sapphires. Tue Oct 06 16:28:56 -0700 2009 5082373 71241 lynnlato 2 5083841 Sort of amazing that this is the only comment that mentions the role of chow /internet and its ilk as part of the demise. Same problem with newspapers. I for one am overwhelmed with paper and no longer subscribe to anything printed. I have plenty of cookbooks and the internet fills in nicely. Tue Oct 06 15:52:19 -0700 2009 5081971 71215 mlgb 1 5082406 I, like a poster way up above, learned how to cook from Gourmet and Craig Claiborne. Indeed, the modern Gourmet ain't what it used to be. Before the changes of the past 8-10 years, it was like retreating into a private club; another world. Lately, too much emphasis on being "hip." For me, Gourmet died years ago so it's not a biggie... (Color me pathetic as I clutch my bound issues of '70s and '80s Gourmet.) Tue Oct 06 07:38:10 -0700 2009 5079686 270888 shaogo 2 5082605 Count me among the fans of Gourmet in the Reichl era. Maybe you don't agree with her politics, but I for one have always appreciated the fact that the magazine wasn't dumbed down and that it treated food as a worthy topic to treat in a thoughtful, even literary, manner--the M.F.K. Fisher of food magazines, as contrasted to Bon Appetit's Rachel Ray (to use an imperfect analogy). And even if I found some of the newest food trends documented to be just plain silly (raw foods, exclusively? No thank you), I was always glad to be kept informed about them. The quality and diversity of the recipes was never compromised. Tue Oct 06 08:40:25 -0700 2009 5082406 21142 abstractpoet 1 5082437 Right now - 10:50 am in New York - WNYC is doing call ins and discussion of Gormet's closing. Looking for reactions, if anyone is interested. Tue Oct 06 07:51:44 -0700 2009 5079686 64784 onthelam 1 5082648 Wow. I am truly bummed. This was the only magazine I looked forward to receiving and reading. I loved the writing, the photography, the politics, and I felt like the recipes were getting better and better. They dropped this magazine, and now what are we left with? BA Foodist drivel? Aghh. Tue Oct 06 08:58:24 -0700 2009 5079686 89969 moh 1 5082740 I was absolutely stunned to hear this news. God damn money grubbers over at Conde Naste. After almost 70 years, ya think they could tolerate 6 months of down advertizing, especially when circulation numbers were good. I started reading Gourmet in college over 20 years ago. Until last summer I had every issue from 1987 to the present. In a now unwise move, I got rid of my back copies in a move to a smaller place. I thought Gourmet would always be there, and if I wanted the back issues again, I could get them anytime. I regret it now. Especially July 1995 and the 60th Anniversary issue. I had a terrible day yesterday, and woke today hoping for better. This was NOT the news I wanted to get today. Tue Oct 06 09:53:05 -0700 2009 5079686 11028 DanaB 1 5082933 So disappointing, especially since I decided to not renew BA and to renew Gourmet (last month!), since it's much more interesting as a read and for recipes! Having said that, what will Conde Nast do for those who've recently renewed? Switch us to BA? That would be OK, I guess, but how does one find out? Tue Oct 06 10:42:41 -0700 2009 5079686 16421 brownie 2 5083103 If my earlier experience with Domino (also a Conde Naste publication) is any indication, they'll probably just switch us over to Bon Appetit without giving any direct notification. (In that instance, subscribers were even more royally screwed since the replacement magazine, Architectural Digest, is targeted at, like, the exact opposite demographic.) I wonder if they will give refunds to those who ask. My guess is that they won't, and if that's the case, then their recent push for subscription renewals seems fundamentally dishonest (assuming that SOME folks at Conde Naste must have had at least an inkling that this might be coming). I must have received half a dozen renewal notifications from them in the past couple of months, and I signed up for a two-year renewal literally a day or two before they announced the closing. Tue Oct 06 11:30:51 -0700 2009 5082933 21142 abstractpoet 3 5083469 Couldn't you dispute the charge on your CC? Tue Oct 06 13:19:39 -0700 2009 5083103 10532 LindaWhit 3 5083664 Im renewed for both Gourmet and BA through like 2011. So what are they gonna do, extend my stupid BA subscription for 2 more years? Yay? I am simply destroyed over the loss of Gourmet Magazine. I cant begin to describe how this feels to me............this is honest to god the first and only time I have been touched by this shitty economy in such a personal way. Ive been reading that magazine cover to cover for over 15 years. The photography is stunning, the travel section is inspiring, the recipes are challenging and Ruth Reichl is rich with talent. I get them all...........Saveur, Bon Appetit, Cuisine, Food & Wine, Cucina Italiana, Cooking Light, Cooks, Healthy Cooking, I lose count how many I get.......the ONLY one I anticipate is Gourmet. That magazine is so far superior to all the others...........and Bon Appetit is such a bullshit amateurs rag, I hate it. I wouldnt even get that stupid crap if they didnt give it to me for free with my subscription to Gourmet. Now Im stuck with that? Im thinking about canceling and demanding a refund for BOTH. Tue Oct 06 14:42:23 -0700 2009 5083103 252182 FlaFoodie2008 3 5083935 Me, too - I just went thru the whole mail-pile. It was pretty big because we were gone about 4 weeks of july - august. I had three renewal notices from Gourmet. I had pushed them into the late Oct pile, since I didn't expire until January. Good thing I wasn't on the ball, and paid up right away. Tue Oct 06 16:30:14 -0700 2009 5083103 124908 jeanmarieok 2 5083506 Hear Hear! It's hard to get a word in edgewise on this board. I think the furor is growing. I hope someone will create a mechanism to let Conde Nast know what an unpopular decision they made- a Move On for cooks site. Interesting that they are still soliciting subscriptions to Gourmet on the Epicurious website. Tue Oct 06 13:41:26 -0700 2009 5082933 66281 ginnyhw 1 5083113 Sad but not surprising. When I wrote to Ruth many years back that I found myself perusing the entire magazine without finding a recipe (or few) that interested me, despite being a very happy subsriber for decades, she was defensive and disinterested. Pride comes before a fall. Tue Oct 06 11:33:42 -0700 2009 5079686 10309 Funwithfood 1 5083726 I have enjoyed the recipes for many years, but hated the way they were submerged in pages and pages of glossy ads and features catering to the affluent,, elitist lifestyle. Too bad! I will miss the recipes. Tue Oct 06 14:59:30 -0700 2009 5079686 1099762 CookieWeasel 2 5083785 Not sure why people keep calling it elitist. Its become a bit of a catch phrase. Perhaps the magazine's demographic was older and more affluent. But good writing is is not elitist. Discussing relevant issues is not elitist. Perhaps because the magazine is referred to in that way is because at times it challenged readers as opposed to simply dumbing down and focusing on the lowest common denominator. Something that seems to be happening much too often thee days. Tue Oct 06 15:23:07 -0700 2009 5083726 23758 Withnail42 3 5083819 What next, axe the New Yorker? I think they did it to send a chill down Anna Wintour's spine. Conde Nasty is a brutal place. Tue Oct 06 15:42:42 -0700 2009 5083785 13003 whs 4 5083968 I too am a long time Gourmet subscriber and collector (1982- present). I preferred it during the 1980's and 1990's...but continued to like it more than most of the dozen or so food mags I receive. I liked RR's politics...her focus on local producers. But missed the great recipes and travel articles of the past years. I hope someone will resurrect it...perhaps GZ the prior editor. I liked the direction she took it in. I always felt I would be happy to pay 3 or 4 times the current price for the "old Gourmet". I thought they charged too little for a high quality product. Tue Oct 06 16:48:09 -0700 2009 5083819 15039 Tripper 3 5084070 I miss the previous Gourmet Editor--anyone remember her name? Tue Oct 06 17:42:01 -0700 2009 5083785 10309 Funwithfood 4 5084421 Gail Zweigenthal. Here's the wikipedia link for the magazine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gourmet_magazine I'm amazed that it's only had four editors in cheif in its 68 years! I loved the magazine under Gail Z. as well (1991-1998). That was really when I started getting into cooking in a big way, and I cherished every issue. I liked it as well under Ruth Reichl, but not as much as I did in the 1990s. I especially liked the contributing writers in the 1990s, including Laurie Colwin. There have just been so many great things about the magazine over the years. Tue Oct 06 20:22:53 -0700 2009 5084070 11028 DanaB 5 5084583 Yes Gail Zweigenthal, classy woman (where did she go?) Wow, and Laurie Colwin! Those were the days... That is the Gourmet I have missed...for so many years. Tue Oct 06 22:47:36 -0700 2009 5084421 10309 Funwithfood 6 5084825 I looked forward to every issue, just to see what Laurie Colwin's contribution was. Wed Oct 07 05:23:54 -0700 2009 5084583 124908 jeanmarieok 6 5086168 Hey FunW... Do you remember who was the original editor - a gentleman named Ausland(sp?). 68 years is a long time and I don't remember his full name. I used to have those really old issues until space became a storage problem. The oldies went to my local library. Their authors and writing were another thing I enjoyed about the magazine. I have books by Reichl and Colwin who is deceased. They ran Laurie Colwin's obit in the magazine. What a talent, a modern M.F.K. Fisher. The magazine ran a great tribute. I will miss that magazine, its cooking and reading. Ah well! Wed Oct 07 13:01:10 -0700 2009 5084583 1107996 4culiniarians 7 5090790 Earle McAusland, I believe. None of the other consumer magazines have articles on food without recipes. "Scholarly" pieces about places and ingredients and people associated with food and its history. Gastronomica is the only mag left doing that, and it's quarterly. Fri Oct 09 07:48:15 -0700 2009 5086168 52499 ChefJune 8 5102482 Gastronomica not the only one: there's Edward Behr's "Art of Eating," a food culture magazine out of San Francisco called "Meatpaper", John Thorne's newsletter, and I'm sure many others. Wed Oct 14 09:46:50 -0700 2009 5090790 12377 bella_sarda 8 5102757 I saw Gastronomica for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I didn't spend a lot of time with it, but at first glance, it struck me as precious and pretentious and , even more deadly, boring. What say you? is it worth a 2nd look. Wed Oct 14 11:21:16 -0700 2009 5090790 10471 danna 9 5102895 danna - I had the same reaction to "Gastronomica." And I've looked at several issues to see if maybe it was just a matter of my first exposure being to a less than stellar issue. But no, I just don't like the magazine. Wed Oct 14 12:06:50 -0700 2009 5102757 63569 flourgirl 1 5084815 Gourmet once "covered" a dinner chez moi. Its editors were exemplary. For weeks they called to verify every little detail including the background of the non-English/French-speaking chef and even the dinner dialogue. Ex: "did your husband really say 'your weight in garlic"?" "Did the chef really train as a soprano of revolutionary songs? It was a great evening, great fun, made even more fun by the article by the incomparable Calvin Trillin. I will miss Gourmet. (Hope the pic does not violate copyright) Wed Oct 07 05:18:59 -0700 2009 5079686 1106797 Parigi 2 5085422 Thanks for sharing that memory! It's a great one :-) Wed Oct 07 09:15:17 -0700 2009 5084815 11028 DanaB 1 5085052 I'll never forget going to the bookstore after college graduation and the utter joy of buying "pleasure reading", something I hadn't known in 4 years. An issue of Gourmet was one of my purchases. At the time, I dismissed it as "above my head", but a few years later I suppose I had gained enough sophistication and experience in the kitchen that it became meaningful to me. I subscribed from '93 to '08 but let it lapse sometime last year because I have lots of stuff I need to read, and I fill my food porn needs here on Chowhound. I have been in the process of tossing my collection of back issues, which until recently was complete during the years mentioned. I could always use Epicurious. Now I'm in a bit of a panic. Will they REALLY keep all that stuff on Epi long term? Should I save the remaining issues? I really need the space. Oh, and someone buys me a subscr. to BA every year, and although I read it, it sucks compared to Gourmet. The fact that they chose to keep it...I guess it's the same mindset that programs the food network. Wed Oct 07 07:07:51 -0700 2009 5079686 10471 danna 2 5085317 <The fact that they chose to keep it...I guess it's the same mindset that programs the food network.> You said a mouthful! Wed Oct 07 08:42:54 -0700 2009 5085052 52499 ChefJune 2 5085666 To compare Bon Appetit to the crap shows on the Food Network (where sadly there are very few good cooking shows remaining) is misguided. Gourmet had lots of articles. Great. I didn't read them of late due to time constraints. Good articles should not be considered high brow. It's just a different approach to publishing. What I look for in a cooking magazine (or cooking shows) is good recipes. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned and low brow to measure the appeal of a cooking magazine by the quality of their recipes...if so, I'm fine with that. Wed Oct 07 10:32:37 -0700 2009 5085052 10309 Funwithfood 3 5085835 Funwithfood, have you MADE any of the recipes from Gourmet recently?? It seems a bit unfair to be so dismissive of them otherwise. From the August 2009 issue alone, I count at least 4 fantastic recipes that I'll be adding to my regular repertoire: the corn on the cob with mint-feta butter, the tomato and corn pie, the perfect no-cook strawberry ice cream, and the roasted-tomato soup with parmesan wafers (a reprint from 2003). Not to mention a few others that turned out pretty well, and several more that I tabbed but haven't had a chance to try yet. The most recent October issue has yet to get much mileage for me, but the sweet potato gnocchi with fried sage and shaved chestnuts? Amazing, and an example of everything I look for from a cooking magazine: a thoughtfully conceived seasonal twist on a well-worn classic, and a recipe that challenged me while offering plenty of practical tips to make the task manageable. It's maybe the third or fourth gnocchi recipe I've attempted--and Gourmet's is the first one that made me feel like I had the technique down. I like Bon Appetit fine. I really do. Especially now that Molly Wizenberg has her monthly feature. But the recipes there rarely challenge me or inspire me the way that Gourmet's do. It's making me depressed all over again just thinking about this. I, for one, will be waiting with eager anticipation to see where Reichl ends up. And if it's another magazine, you can bet I'll be ditching B.A. in a heartbeat. Wed Oct 07 11:14:51 -0700 2009 5085666 21142 abstractpoet 4 5085861 I'm not dismissing Gourmet's recipes, as much as defending Bon Appetit's. Wed Oct 07 11:23:10 -0700 2009 5085835 10309 Funwithfood 4 5085936 Thank you. Maybe I'm too ambitious a cook, but I never found Gourmet's recipes to be an afterthought or too highfalutin. Some of my favorite recipes over the years have come from Gourmet, from my go-to risotto recipe to a wonderful (and simple to make) hot toddy pudding (a twist on lemon surprise cake) that appeared in the March issue this year. They always worked beautifully, which gave me the confidence to try things I otherwise might not have tried. Wed Oct 07 11:48:01 -0700 2009 5085835 10669 Amuse Bouches 5 5086378 A.B.: Read your blog post, and your thoughts echo many of my own. I too had my caterer serve a variation on a Gourmet dish at my wedding--in fact, it was a recipe from my first-ever issue of Gourmet, back when I was just learning how to cook (the Crisp Chicken-Fried Steak Strips, January 2004)! So I'll always feel a debt of gratitude to Gourmet--one that extends far beyond the harsh realities of the publishing world that, I suppose, eventually did the magazine in. Wed Oct 07 13:57:42 -0700 2009 5085936 21142 abstractpoet 3 5086276 The comparison is really not that far off. While BA is a decent magazine. It's articles are not overly in depth. Much as FN really covers only very basic cooking. Gourmet was much more that the recipes. Wed Oct 07 13:27:00 -0700 2009 5085666 23758 Withnail42 4 5094489 I've tried to like Bon Appetit, I really have, but I really do find that it's recipes and its approach to cooking is dumbed down. It always offers tips for replacing the original ingredients with pre-prepared foodstuffs, and while that might be more practical, it is certainly NOT inspirational. Gourmet tried to keep up with the dumbies in recent years with their 30 minute recipe sections, etc., but I truly feel that this cancelation was the result of a lack of imagination on the part of the magazine publishers. Recessions only last so long, and the magazine had weathered almost 70 years' worth of them yet retained its readership and popularity. Killing a magazine like Gourmet for 6 months worth of losses is akin to the same mentality that got Wall Street in trouble in the first place. No long term goals, no vision, and no creativity for how to deal with a changing publishing atmosphere. The fact that they didn't sell the magazine, but kept the brand and logo for use on the internet makes it clear that there is still value in the brand. My hope is that somebody will knock some sense into the publisher to stop solely listening to the Money Men and start having some creativity, and they will bring it back once the recession is over. I am so mad at Conde Naste over this, I think I will boycott all their magazines. I have this image in my head of some business school grad who has crunched the numbers but who has never read a book other than The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, and who's favorite meal is take out from Boston Market, telling the company that they will save money by killing Gourmet Magazine and that Bon Appetite is a perfectly good substitute. Somebody with no soul or no history with the magazine, some economist reducing a consumer's preference for one or the other to a number value, and basing the decision on that. I am actually studying economics on the graduate level right now and I can just imagine the analysis. I'm queasy just thinking about it. Sat Oct 10 23:38:02 -0700 2009 5086276 11028 DanaB 5 5094591 Just a couple of points--I understand the backlash against quick meals (wrt Rachael Ray), but a 30-min. meals section is not necessarily dumbing down. While I've never been a huge fan of Gourmet, the inclusion of a quick meals column (as long as it isn't a publication's raison d'etre) hardly qualifies as pandering to the lowest common denominator. Rather, it's a a nod to the times, since many people, including good, creative cooks like myself, don't want to relegate our "good" meals to the weekends when we may have more time. I, for one, appreciate the recipes that inspire me to put together a delicious meal without sacrificing hours of my time, even with a mountain of grading and a research deadline looming. I can assure you that even though I may use a "quick meals" recipe, I am decidedly not a "dumbie". Second, I think the (Internet) writing is on the wall, wrt print publications. Print won't die, but it will transform itself something different and less ubiquitous. That the Gourmet presence will remain online is telling. Granted, I'm still surprised that Conde Nast didn't try to sell Gourmet, because I do think another publisher might have been able to maintain it, though likely in a smaller form, but perhaps prospective buyers would have also wanted the online presence and Conde Nast wouldn't budge on selling that. Anyway, I believe we are just starting to see the combination of the economy and the "grown up" Internet wreak its havoc on the print magazine industry. And I say this as someone who FAR prefers print for food/cooking reading (though I do get my news online and I rarely buy newspapers anymore, unless I need some newsprint for the grill's chimney starter); I love the sensuality of a beautiful glossy, the feel of the smooth pages, but I am a sample size of one. There's a CH thread somewhere (maybe in Not About Food) on the "death" of cookbooks. I love cookbooks--okay, I probably qualify as "addicted" and in need of an intervention--but plenty of people rely solely on the Internet for recipes, instruction, and inspiration. You do raise an excellent point about the lack of vision, though. While not a diehard fan of Gourmet, I would pick up a couple of issues every year and it did seem to be disjointed. But perhaps that is not a function of the editorial staff, but rather my own inconsistency in reading the magazine (loyal readers will have to weigh in here and tell me if I needed to read it consistently, month-after-month, to appreciate Gourmet's direction. Sun Oct 11 04:31:22 -0700 2009 5094489 131171 nofunlatte 6 5094601 Your second paragraph is spot-on. The recession may have hastened the process but this is simply the future of all journalism. And from what I hear and read, no one has come up with a really good solution yet. I'm surprised that so many people on this thread don't seem to know this since they're all using the internet :) Sun Oct 11 04:42:33 -0700 2009 5094591 131001 c oliver 6 5095378 Funny, one of the things about Gourmet is that they were really getting it together in multimedia - online and through the TV series. Reichl was even on Twitter! Sorry to see the downfall when they were doing so many expansion/brand things right. I just looked at BA's website (for the first time) and it's no where near as skilled. Sun Oct 11 13:57:03 -0700 2009 5094591 11989 pitu 1 5085645 I'm just so sad about this. I love Gourmet. I sent them an email at the letter to the editor section of Gourmet.com and it came back with an out-of-office reply that said "Thank you for taking the time to write. Gourmet magazine has been closed. For subscription information, you can write to GMTcustserv@cdsfulfillment.com:". It's like not being able to say goodbye. Wed Oct 07 10:26:29 -0700 2009 5079686 129259 wintersummer 2 5093638 As a Gourmet subscriber who has no interest Bon Appetit, I just canceled my subscription and will receive a refund for the remaining issues. 1-800-365-2454. If sizable percentage of other Gourmet subscribers do the same, that will hurt Conde Nast more than angry emails or letters. Sat Oct 10 12:42:02 -0700 2009 5085645 51246 bongomama 3 5093713 Why do you want to "hurt Conde Nast"? Truly - why? Do you think that the manufacturer of a line of products has to continue making all those products no matter how much money they are losing? Truly - do you think that? Or do you think that someone else should get to decide what stays and what goes? Truly - do you? I own a Saturn and they're not going to make Saturn any more. I wish they would but it was a business decision. The Gap no long makes clothes that I like and that fit me. I wish they did but it was a business decision. Unfortunately I never get to be in charge when Trader Joe's discontinues carrying a particular food product. So, again, why do you want to "hurt Conde Nast"??? Sat Oct 10 13:27:21 -0700 2009 5093638 131001 c oliver 4 5094108 "Hurting" them is one way to put it. But however you cut it, clearly Conde Nast has made a calculated business decision here, part of which is probably counting on it that current Gourmet subscribers will just stay on with Bon Appetit, thus maximizing their profits. (It's worth noting, I think, that they kept on pushing Gourmet subscription renewals right down to the very end.) I'll probably end up keeping my Bon Appetit subscription because, for now, it's better than nothing. But there's nothing wrong with expressing one's disapproval of the decision by not continuing to support the company. Your money is the only "vote" you have. Sat Oct 10 17:33:13 -0700 2009 5093713 21142 abstractpoet 4 5094496 I don't want to hurt Conde Naste per se, but I do want to send them a message that they made a bad decision. It was an ignorant, ill advised decision to kill Gourmet magazine for 6 months worth of bad ad revenues, when its circulation numbers are strong and recessions only last so long. I guess the current recession hasn't taught companies ANYTHING, if they make decisions like this. It is a decision that panders to a lack of vision, and a lack of faith in the readership, the demographic and the hope for civilized dialogue in America. Fine, if you are the National Inquirer. Not good, if you are Conde Naste, which publishes some of the better magazines in the world. I want to send them a message that I DON'T LIKE THEIR DECISION. Period. If they don't want my money, fine, let them pander to the lowest common denomenator, but it's an absolutely perfect consumer response for people who liked Gourmet but don't like Bon Appetite to not allow that to be a default substitute for them, to cancel their subscriptions and let the company know they are not happy. If it hurts the company, good. Then they will know they made a mistake. Sat Oct 10 23:47:34 -0700 2009 5093713 11028 DanaB 5 5094606 Please see nofunlatte's comments above regarding the internet and how ALL publications are on the horns of a dilemna. The recession has simply caused it to happen a little sooner. Sun Oct 11 04:45:15 -0700 2009 5094496 131001 c oliver 4 5096439 So let me get this straight - you still shop at the Gap, even though their clothes no longer suit you? Truly? Mon Oct 12 04:18:21 -0700 2009 5093713 12120 julesrules 5 5096473 Truly. For our adult children and their spouses. Mon Oct 12 05:32:22 -0700 2009 5096439 131001 c oliver 1 5085868 Interesting (sort of snarky) editorial in today's Boston Globe. http://tinyurl.com/yalxkxs Although as some commenters have said, the same could be said of the Boston Globe. ;-) Wed Oct 07 11:25:47 -0700 2009 5079686 10532 LindaWhit 2 5085885 Blech. Color me unamused. Wed Oct 07 11:29:22 -0700 2009 5085868 21142 abstractpoet 3 5085913 Well, at times I had to agree with some of the commenters - more people are looking for recipes with ingredients they can easily find. While I'm glad their recipes aren't leaving Epicurious, they can, at times, be rather overbearing. JMO. Wed Oct 07 11:42:37 -0700 2009 5085885 10532 LindaWhit 3 5085949 Fair enough. But personally, I always felt like there was a good balance. It didn't bother me if there was an entire feature on, say, the cuisine of a particular tiny village in Spain, full of beautiful pictures and interesting, unusual recipes (with obscure or ultra-expensive ingredients) that I'd probably never actually attempt--because there would always be enough other recipes that were completely accessible. And I always appreciated that there was an effort to be authentic in many of the "ethnic" recipes, rather than just watering them down or Americanizing them. Wed Oct 07 11:52:46 -0700 2009 5085885 21142 abstractpoet 4 5086079 On the authenticity, I agree. But I guess their subscriber base and ad revenue just didn't warrant keeping the "higher end" magazine open. I'm not a fan of Bon Appetit in magazine form. If I can get the recipes they offer online at Epicurious, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, I detest the ad-laden magazines (I get several that are ad-heavy, including those that look like articles but are really several page advertisements for windows or whatever). But I guess that's the way they keep their ad revenue up. Wed Oct 07 12:35:51 -0700 2009 5085949 10532 LindaWhit 5 5086740 LW, I understand that subscriptions amount to almost nothing versus advertising. Wed Oct 07 15:59:59 -0700 2009 5086079 131001 c oliver 6 5086754 Still... you would think about a million people... alot of us would have gladly paid a higher subscription rate Wed Oct 07 16:07:20 -0700 2009 5086740 54744 rozz01 6 5087231 Highly probable. However, when magazines are more ads than content, the subscriber base drops off. And with no subscribers, advertisers aren't going to place ads...which means they won't be able to keep printing the subscriptions. One of those vicious circles, isn't it? Wed Oct 07 19:27:02 -0700 2009 5086740 10532 LindaWhit 4 5129203 I agree with you, Abstractpoet. I felt that there was a good balance of simplified (or recipes that did not require simplification because they were inherently simple) recipes and the more complex, time-consuming recipes for which I subscribed to Gourmet. It sometimes irritated me that I was getting simplified recipes that I could just as easily have obtained from a half dozen other cooking magazines (or the Food Network) on the market. But I understood the need to appeal to a broad audience. What dismays me is that the demise of Gourmet leaves readers who like exotic, complex, time-consuming recipes with few (maybe no?) alternatives in the cooking magazine world. (I am going to have to research this because I am not really certain about the existence of other complex-recipe cooking magazines.) Anyway, while I understood the need for a "balanced" magazine (i.e. "30 Minute Meal"-style recipes in the magazine) the end of Gourmet Magazine does appear to me to continue the trend of dumbing down cooking magazines and the Food Network. Bon Appetit is a fine magazine and I will continue to subscribe to it for its interesting recipes, but it "ain't no" Gourmet Magazine. The Cadillac/Meredes Benz/Rolls Royce/Lexus of cooking magazines is gone, and now we're going to have to make do with Buicks. I shall truly miss it. Sun Oct 25 08:19:38 -0700 2009 5085949 22427 gfr1111 2 5086289 A very obnoxious piece. Even more so considering the source. The expression 'whistling through the graveyard comes to mind.' Wed Oct 07 13:31:28 -0700 2009 5085868 23758 Withnail42 3 5086953 I agree...pretty nasty article. I have never found the recipes in Gourmet difficult. In fact, it was the only magazine that I felt produced consistently excellent recipes. I have dozens from past issues that I make every year. I can honestly say I only made one that I thought was terrible. I don't even find the ingredients too exotic for the most part. And I currently shop in Boise Idaho with no Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Zingerman's etc. A real loss...my biggest shock is that no one stepped in to buy it. Wed Oct 07 17:26:40 -0700 2009 5086289 15039 Tripper 4 5087332 "...my biggest shock is that no one stepped in to buy it." Shall we pool our resources, then? =) Wed Oct 07 20:06:14 -0700 2009 5086953 21142 abstractpoet 1 5087400 As others are saying, I am soooo terribly disappointed. My husband and I both read every month from cover to cover. And while we made the recipes on occasion, it was more about the information it provided - about the local, organic or farm to table movement, about meals from abroad and about keeping tabs on the inside track of the restaurant scene. I didn't always love the article every month that focused on pictures of the people and the scenery - some felt pretty contrived. But the cover was always food and beautiful - particularly bc they would leave the story titles off for subscribers. I am not really looking forward to BA - I can get recipes anywhere. I want food writing - and the best around. I too remember Laurie Colwin - have ALL her books. She was great and someone to admire. She got me hooked on food writing and finding a replacement for that will be close to impossible. Good thing I have shelves and shelves of food books - time to start re-reading some classics! Wed Oct 07 20:50:22 -0700 2009 5079686 97248 meginAB 1 5088035 I'm so bummed. For me, its not about just cooking - I can cook. Its always been about exploring new ways to cook - and new ingredients. The highest compliment i ever received (other than people clearing their plates) was a friend who said "this looks like the cover of Gourmet". And indeed, it was a recreation of the cover recipe. And since we're all piling on BA, has anyone noticed how UNappetizing the photography is these days? The covers are flat and unappealing, and I swear the up close photo of cranberries in the Thanksgiving edition looked like an open chest wound. It took me 2 days to figure out that the first close up was actually a turkey. Ruth, please find some funding and revive Gourmet - we need you! Thu Oct 08 07:47:58 -0700 2009 5079686 1114677 mixitup 2 5088397 RR was there long enough to establish her editorial vision. The Times article pionts to lots of money backing repeated alterations. With this noted, maybe something she did or didn't do contributed to the demise of this beloved rag. Thu Oct 08 09:36:19 -0700 2009 5088035 20276 wew 3 5088789 Sad to see a proper magazine go, but worst to hear how many people lost their jobs. The publishing business waste so much money; run away expense accounts, reshoots, politics, and general unpredictability. Unless the others learn from this "recipe" more are going to fall. Thu Oct 08 11:37:13 -0700 2009 5088397 59124 redpinto 1 5089219 So nice to be here with like minds. I was so sad to hear about this -- both as a cook, and a food writer. Thu Oct 08 14:07:10 -0700 2009 5079686 46897 gridder 1 5090261 I used to subscribe to both Gourmet and Bon Appetit until Conde Nast started putting scented perfume samples in their mags. I complained and got a brush off letter essentially saying "tough biscuits". I never renewed. Thu Oct 08 23:01:20 -0700 2009 5079686 1115001 relaxeau 2 5092681 I was out with a friend from Conde Nast this evening. She said the Gourmet staff were completely blindsided by the closure, as were the staff at kids mag Cookie. The other magazines knew the writing was on the wall. Fri Oct 09 20:32:25 -0700 2009 5090261 21982 koknia 3 5092690 Somehow that just makes it even sadder.... Fri Oct 09 20:36:04 -0700 2009 5092681 54744 rozz01 4 5094278 So sad about this. I'll miss Gourmet every month.... Sat Oct 10 19:33:16 -0700 2009 5092690 139101 beauxgoris 3 5096240 The two magazines always competed with each other despite having the same parent company. Bon Appetit finally went all in, with a new art staff. They were playing for keeps; I think the EIC Fairchild was just more aggressive in keeping Bon Appetit. Sun Oct 11 21:32:57 -0700 2009 5092681 59124 redpinto 3 5099805 Seems odd that staff would be completely blindsided because I remember reading somewhere several months ago that the magazine was in real trouble and would possibly cease publication (or reduce number of issues per year, or be folded into BA). I would have thought the two magazines could have been integrated into one. It is really too bad Gourmet is folding (I have been reading it since I was 16) - even though I did not care for the Reichl versions, there were always items of interest in it. Tue Oct 13 10:23:21 -0700 2009 5092681 13709 buttertart 1 5099672 I was flipping through the Nov issue of BA and I'm missing Gourmet more and more. Now that it's gone, I see the difference in the writing. I guess you can say there is no writing in BA. I'm planning a trip to New England and have come across all sorts of old articles from Gourmet, giving me all kinds of travel advice. I just don't get that from Bon Appetit. Tue Oct 13 09:45:57 -0700 2009 5079686 129259 wintersummer 2 5188829 Ugh, not to beat a dead horse, but I just went through the December Bon Appeitit, and I'm not sure if I'm just feeling over-emotional after Gourmet's demise, but can it be possible that the magazine has gotten WORSE since the elimination of its main competition? To say nothing about the tacky layout and lack of interesting articles, I had trouble mustering up even the slightest bit of enthusiasm for any of the recipes. Seems to me that Gourmet was even doing the "quick and easy" recipe genre better. And do we REALLY need to cook our entire Christmas dinner in one hour? Molly Wizenburg is the only redeeming thing... It's too much to ask, I'm sure, for Conde Naste to devote some of that money it's not spending on Gourmet to make BA better... Tue Nov 17 10:33:43 -0800 2009 5099672 21142 abstractpoet 3 5193031 I have to agree. Sadly they've brought Gourmet's (1970's style) morose photography to Bon Appetit. Wed Nov 18 19:08:00 -0800 2009 5188829 10309 Funwithfood 4 5193713 I haven't seen the new BA (hey, Condé Nast, where's my replacement subsciption?) but 1970's Gourmet photography morose? Stately, maybe. Which would be a surprise in the pages of BA. Thu Nov 19 06:13:09 -0800 2009 5193031 13709 buttertart 5 5197635 I collect vintage cookbooks (1920s-present). Gourmet (and sadly now many more food magazines) have adapted the low-light photography similar to many of the 1960's-1970's magazines and cookbooks. The food is shot in an unnatural light, and is very unappealing...at least to my eye. But, it's the rage right now for whatever reason. I'm not a trendy type and don't buy into it. Fri Nov 20 20:49:46 -0800 2009 5193713 10309 Funwithfood 1 5099703 Does anyone know what's happening with the rest of the staff at Gourmet. I know there's been discussion of Ruth R., but what about all the others? What about Jane Daniels Lear? Kemp Minifie? Ruth Cousineau? Paul Grimes? Maggie Ruggiero? Caroline Bates? Romulo Yanes? Sara Moulton? Micheal Green? These are names I associate with Gourmet magazine and I'll miss their talents - I hope we see these names show up on another publication. I wish someone would buy this magazine and realize that it really is the "magazine of fine living" Tue Oct 13 09:55:03 -0700 2009 5079686 129259 wintersummer 1 5103074 Just wondering if anyone has heard what Conde Nast is doing for the subscribers of Gourmet - e.g., will we automatically receive refunds for unsent issues, or will we have the option to tack onto the end of existing CN subscriptions? I got my November issue of Gourmet yesterday and am assuming it's the last one. Wed Oct 14 13:01:06 -0700 2009 5079686 140805 mdepsmom 2 5103406 I'm afraid they will continue the subscription w/Bon Appetit... Not the best substitute I know... Wed Oct 14 14:58:40 -0700 2009 5103074 54744 rozz01 2 5106392 Further upthread, several people posted an Email address and a phone # to cancel your subscription and get your money back: Email: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/657108#5085645 Phone #: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/657108#5093638 Thu Oct 15 15:17:11 -0700 2009 5103074 10532 LindaWhit 1 5115219 Got my final issue today. Did anyone else think it was ironic that they still had the "Last Chance offer for Gourmet subscribers -- Give a gift subscription for $4" insert? That would be pretty Last Chance. Mon Oct 19 14:19:38 -0700 2009 5079686 10232 yumyum 2 5117824 I noticed that too! I was expecting some explanation about the Bon Appetite thing....nothing yet! Tue Oct 20 12:54:06 -0700 2009 5115219 39504 Shrinkrap 2 5127496 Me too. I actually just finished poring over the Thanksgiving issue (is that the final you speak of?-might be a bit delayed in Canada), and noticed not only the gift card but the ads stating the same. I ear-marked several recipes in there to try. Sat Oct 24 09:41:11 -0700 2009 5115219 153184 im_nomad 3 5134846 Yes, it is the last issue. Have seen it at the newsagent's here, but I am too peeved at them to buy it. Too late for Canadian Thanksgiving, but many good autumnal recipes including several vegetarian/vegetable options - always good to eat more veg whether one is vegetarian or omnivore, and it features good seasonal recipes. They are all on the still-extant Gourmet online site. Tue Oct 27 11:09:58 -0700 2009 5127496 84119 lagatta 1 5127834 I just received my November issue. It's just so sad. I can't even open it - I feel like I'm "saving" it for a special occasion. I certainly will never throw it away. I can't help but think that someone will purchase the Gourmet name/brand and start publishing again. Sat Oct 24 12:47:50 -0700 2009 5079686 129259 wintersummer 1 5174510 There's an interesting interview w/Reichl on NPR's Chef table this week if anyone is interested.. Wed Nov 11 19:20:54 -0800 2009 5079686 54744 rozz01