Some Internet Lessons from the Close of Portfolio

There are a few basic lessons to be learned from Conde Nast’s decision to close Portfolio, despite sinking $100M into the launch.

Lesson 1 is the obvious: Use the Web to test new products and launch with some modesty. Portfolio, of note, was doomed because it was full of hubris.

Lesson 2 is somewhat sexist but it’s true: Unless you are a magazine targeting women in one specific category or another, just go online-only. End of story.

Lesson 3 is that you can pick a great category like Finance and Business but still get blindsided by poor timing and abysmal luck. However, while I’ve never read Portfolio, I get a sense that instead of covering what was actually going on in the world of Finance and Business, the editors put their heads in the sand.

The perfect storm created by these three things culminated in the news yesterday. I reiterate: The only thing that print companies should be investing in is online video (not because I am biased) but because it remains the only salvation, not today, or tomorrow, but in 1 or 10 years down the line.

Comments

[Ruthanne Wi...:]

As a female SA contributor and Portfolio subscriber/fan, I'd appreciate your expanding #2 a little. To wit: What exactly are you trying to say?

(Also, why are you writing about Portfolio, having never read the thing? But that's secondary.)

Apr 28 12:28 PM

[Bean Counter:]

Why do you think its success or failure had anything to do with how it reached readers? The real customers here are the advertisers.

Conde Nast specializes in serving advertisers who of luxury goods like watches and fashion, and those glossy ads are the last things that will move to the web. So how do you test this on the web?

Portfolio had a decent high-end audience. Editorially, it was ok. But in this advertising environment, the advertisers stuck with Vanity Fair and other titles, not needing something new.

The lesson here is about trying to expand in a down market, not about internet testing of glossy magazine ads.

Apr 29 09:16 AM

[notsosmart:]

dont you love it. the guy never read it.what a jerk.

Apr 29 03:57 PM

[Ashkan Karb...:]

Hello, sorry for not checking in earlier.

- Not so Smart: Allow me to clarify: I read online articles quite frequently and actually like the magazine. I apologize about not being more clear.

- Cetin: I worked at AskMen as VP of Ad Sales, columnist etc., so we took and beat Maxim online... but ultimately, Maxim has gone from $28M in EBITDA to $8M in EBITDA; Blender's gone online-only. I don't read Pop. Mechanics but doubt it is on as solid of a footing as it was 10 years ago.

Health, tech, science or news in print is a ridiculous notion, when you think about.

- Ruthanne: When we sold AskMen to IGN, all of the IGN execs showed us data upon data just suggesting that the only healthy magazines (thick ones ;) seemed to be women's oriented lifestyle publications.

For what it's worth, I think print has a future, just a smaller one. If print media firms embrace video as they move online, I think they can do great things. The question is: will they? Or better yet: can they?

Apr 30 09:30 PM

[Ashkan Karb...:]

Answered you below.


On Apr 29 03:57 PM notsosmart wrote:

> dont you love it. the guy never read it.what a jerk.

Apr 30 09:30 PM