The New Maclean’s magazine

From: Rachel Giese To: Andrea Curtis Subject: Maclean’s redesign

First impressions first: To me, the design looks like The Economist meets Ok! The boxes on the cover, the density of the font, the narrow margins are all serious newsmagazine, but the bright primary colours, the big, garish display text, the celebrity collages are pure tabloid. It’s a risky design for Maclean’s and I think it half works. It sets it apart from other publications, but some pages are so cluttered and hectic, it’s hard to find a way in to the stories themselves.

It’s the perfect example of what publisher and editor-in-chief Ken Whyte does so well: he creates a big splashy buzz and a sense of occasion. The first time I flipped through the magazine, it felt really hefty and important. It took me a few passes through to actually settle in and read something. A few stories stood out for me — I like the Q&A between Linda Frum and New York Times columnist and Are Men Necessary author Maureen Dowd. I think the 7 Days section with the short news briefs is punchy. And Michael Petrou does thoughtful, opinionated reporting from Europe. Overall, though, I don’t think there’s much change editorially. It’s still the same workmanlike, general-interest journalism.

From: Andrea Curtis To: Rachel Giese Re: Maclean’s redesign

But you have to admit, creating a buzz about Maclean’s is no mean feat. Not reading the magazine has been a badge of honour among media and literary types for a long time. Ken Whyte makes it hard to ignore. I like the tabloid feel of the new design — lots of pull-outs, colour, the little boxes all over the place — because it feels tongue-in-cheek somehow, playing off people’s expectations of the staid newsweekly. That said, I find the density of type and lack of white space makes me feel vaguely overwhelmed and jittery (could be the coffee). I’d expected a slightly more arty touch considering the design team: New York designer Paul Sahre, who was a design consultant when Whyte was at Saturday Night, Leanne Shapton, a former Saturday Night art director, and Christine Dewairy, who was art director and fashion editor at the National Post.

As for content, I liked the short back-of-the-feature-well pieces best: crime, justice, science (who knew “steak” could be made from bio-engineered frog muscle cells?) and the expanded arts section. Another thing Whyte is very good at is hiring smart and surprising people. GG-nominated novelist and academic Joseph Boyden could be really great for Maclean’s, though I liked the idea of his piece about a Native Canadian theatre company in Saskatoon building bridges with the police better than the story itself.

I also appreciated the stabs at humour: the upfront 7 Days section divided into “Good News” and “Bad News” and the small and (occasionally) amusing boxed bits scattered throughout the news section. The columns, I think, have a way to go before they’re a must-read — Paul Wells excepted, because he’s entertaining and smart whether or not you agree with his take on things. I was surprised to read you liked Linda Frum’s interview with Maureen Dowd, because I found the conversation so completely weird. It seemed like Frum was baiting her the whole time to admit that it’s not men but she herself who’s screwed up, and Dowd either didn’t know what she was getting at or just didn’t take the bait. I suspect this interview section, which is apparently going to alternate weekly between Frum and Whyte himself, is the place — other than the more obvious editorial — to look for the magazine’s political take on the world and the country.

From: Rachel Giese To: Andrea Curtis Re: Maclean’s redesign

The big question is whether this redesign will be enough to change Maclean’s fortunes. It’s been bleeding readers and staff for a long time. Saturday Night is gone. Shift is dead twice over. The Walrus has not become a must-read and continues to exist, I suspect, largely because it’s privately funded. I wonder if it’s even possible for a general interest magazine to survive in Canada.

I work in Toronto’s obnoxious media bubble, so my opinion is probably useless, but I think there are plenty of people who’d love to read a New Yorker, or Vanity Fair-style Canadian magazine. What do you think the problem is? Is the talent pool of writers, editors and designers not big enough? Are there not enough subscriber and newsstand sales? Not enough advertising? Not enough readers?

What magazines do really well in Canada? Chatelaine. Canadian Living. Hockey News. TV Guide. Does a magazine need to be niche or service oriented in order to sell?

(PS: Agreed on the weirdness of the Q&A, but that’s one of the reasons I liked it. It revealed as much about Frum’s beliefs about gender roles and relations as it did about Dowd’s. Also, Dowd can be a bit glib and prone to over-generalizing; I liked that Frum called her on some of her inconsistencies. I particularly liked Dowd elaborating on Hillary Clinton’s nasty complicity in Bill Clinton’s early attacks on Monica Lewinsky’s credibility. It’s a fair assessment, I think, and one that few feminists were willing to make.)

From: Andrea Curtis To: Rachel Giese Re: Maclean’s redesign

I suspect it’s not only the redesign but whether or not they treat its weekly news format as an asset rather than an albatross that will decide if the new Maclean’s distinguishes itself. I’ve read that Whyte hopes to make the magazine essential reading because of a unique spin and its investigative work. I’d completely welcome more investigative writing in Canadian magazines since it’s sorely lacking, though if it’s all about spin, it could become extremely tiresome. Is it futile to hope it doesn’t simply become a thinly veiled organ of Stephen Harper’s Reform, uh, I mean, Conservative party through the upcoming election?

I happen to think you’re right that people who love magazines and good writing would like to see a really excellent general interest magazine. I think the problem is not with the talent pool or subscribers, it’s with an advertising community that’s learned to expect that it will be catered to, indeed, given everything it could ever wish for. Magalogues and magazines focused on consuming have dramatically altered the advertising landscape. When you’re a big name cosmetic company looking to spend your advertising dollars, it’s not hard to guess that you’re going to choose a magazine that cheerily recommends your lipgloss over one that looks at the plight of AIDS-orphaned children in Africa or environmental degradation in Northern Ontario.

The thing that’s missing from this formula is that opinionated, intelligent, thoughtful magazines have something called credibility. They have to build it over time with great writing, careful story selection and an ability to create an agenda rather than always following one (a sense of fun and not taking yourself too seriously help) but the corollary of this credibility is that advertisers and their products tend to be bathed in the same glow. I think that advertisers have forgotten this, intoxicated by the easy charms of the new breed of magazine.

All of which makes me wonder what you think about the whole blurring of the publisher/editor role. Ken Whyte, of course, is both, and it seems to be something of a trend.

From: Rachel Giese To: Andrea Curtis Re: Maclean’s redesign

Your question about the merging of the publisher/editor is a good one. I think it’s usually a mistake. I can see why it happens: it saves on a salary and it makes for one consistent vision and fewer power struggles. Of course, it could also blur the business interests of a magazine with its editorial interests — which can lead to stories being jettisoned or softened to appease advertisers. Even people with the utmost integrity can find it hard to wear those two hats comfortably. And, frankly, how does someone manage that much work? I’m glad you mentioned investigative writing, because it is an endangered species. It’s expensive and it takes time — which is why a lot of magazines don’t commission a lot of it. Blogs and 24-hour TV cable news have radically changed people’s expectations of journalists: they’re now people with big, fat opinions, not people who doggedly research and track a story. It’s funny that Whyte — who seemed to give every writer in the country a column when he was at the National Post — now champions investigative reporting, but if it comes to pass at Maclean’s, it would be an exciting development.

From: Andrea Curtis To: Rachel Giese Re: Maclean’s redesign

I have to agree about the dangers of the editor/publisher merge. I don’t think that editorial and advertising need to be treated so rigidly as Church and State — as I remember hearing it called in my earliest days at magazines — though I think both editors and publishing-side types need the checks and balances a healthy tug of war between the two creates. With mutual respect it can be a very productive relationship. When one person holds all the cards I wonder if one side — the business one — will simply trump all?

I will be very interested to watch the new Maclean’s to see how Whyte juggles these roles and what he does with the dowager of Canadian magazines (not to mention the so-called “apostroleaf” on the cover that he claims will never look the same twice — what a strange and hilarious challenge to set oneself!). When he started the National Post it was probably one of the most exciting times to be a journalist and/or media consumer in Canada. Competition made the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star better, plus it seemed like there were tons of jobs, opinions flying, people quitting, others getting sacked or made into columnist icons, gossip buzzing around like a moth against a porch light. If he can make moribund Maclean’s the talk of the town, it might give a jumpstart to the rest of the magazine industry — a group demoralized by the demise of Saturday Night, the as-yet-unrealized potential of The Walrus, the lack of worthy startups (pace Maisonneuve), not to mention the triumph of the magalogue. Now that would be something to cheer about.