Inside Intrigue at Conde Nast - Moving and Shaking Going On

Anna Wintour - One of the most
Powerful women in publishing

Conde Nast is a very influential publishing and mass media company with a lot of transformation going on. And tonight we are going to take a look at all the Conde Nast inside intrigue.

I believe this kind of analysis gives all aspiring writers, authors and indie publishers insight into the current day evolving industry that will empower them in their future endeavors. 

First, what is a mass media company (Conde Nast has grown into one over recent years)?

Secondly, a little history of Conde Nast: Condé Nast, a division of Advance Publications, is a mass media company headquartered in the Condé Nast Building in New York City. The company attracts more than 164 million consumers across its 20 print and digital media brands: Allure, Architectural Digest, Ars Technica, Bon Appétit, Brides, Condé Nast Traveler, Details, Epicurious, Glamour, Golf Digest, Golf World, GQ, Lucky, The New Yorker, Self, Teen Vogue,Vanity Fair, Vogue, W and Wired.

The company launched Condé Nast Entertainment in 2011 to develop film, television and digital video programming. The company also owns Fairchild Fashion Media (FFM) and its portfolio of comprehensive fashion journalism brands: Beauty Inc., Footwear News, M, Style.com and WWD.

The company was founded in 1909 by Condé Montrose Nast and has been owned by the Newhouse family since 1959. Samuel Irving Newhouse, Jr. is the chairman and CEO of Advance Publications, Charles H. Townsend is its chief executive officer and Robert A. Sauerberg is its president.


And now this from Crain's New York Business by  MATTHEW FLAMM:

Anna Wintour consolidates her power at Condé Nast

An executive transition also gave President Bob Sauerberg new responsibilities.

  A long-expected executive transition took a step forward at Condé Nast on Wednesday with the announcement that President Bob Sauerberg would assume new responsibilities and Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour  will have no rival in her role as creative director.

Editorial Director Tom Wallace will leave the company. Though he is not being replaced, his job was considered redundant after Ms. Wintour was named creative director last year. John Bellando, a 15-year veteran who was both chief financial officer and chief operating officer, is also leaving the company, to be replaced by an executive from Time Inc.

Mr. Sauerberg, appointed president four years ago Wednesday, will "assume a leading role in all revenue generation activities," CEO Chuck Townsend wrote in a memo to staffers. That leading role will include overseeing Condé Nast Media Group, the division that handles the large corporate advertising sales that have traditionally produced 80% of the company's ad revenue.

Brought in following a brutal advertising recession, Mr. Sauerberg was charged with finding new sources of revenue, and already oversees consumer marketing, digital operations, business development, corporate administration and the new television arm Condé Nast Entertainment. He is also the heir apparent to Mr. Townsend, who is 69.

Mr. Townsend acknowledged the power shift in his memo, noting that "Bob and I have worked side by side as CEO and president to ensure we prepare the company to reach new heights." The changes announced Wednesday begin "this seamless transition."

As part of the transition, Mr. Sauerberg added to his corporate team, bringing in David Geithner from Time Inc. to replace the well-liked Mr. Bellando, who was considered "Chuck's right arm," according to a former Condé Nast executive. Mr. Geithner will report to Mr. Sauerberg, as will Lou Cona, president of Conde Nast Media Group.

Ms. Wintour's ascension was no surprise. 

"Anna really has more power than Bob and Chuck combined," said the former executive. "She's the person everyone sees as a visionary and as having a huge amount of influence inside and outside of the building."

Condé Nast—part of the privately held, Newhouse family-owned Advance Publications—still has its own way of doing things, with roles that are not always clearly defined. For instance, some publishers report to Mr. Townsend, while others report to Mr. Sauerberg. With Wednesday's announcement, they will all report to Mr. Sauerberg, according to a person familiar with the matter, although one publisher was unaware of any change.

"At a company like this it doesn't matter," he said. "You have very little oversight either way."

Correction: All Condé Nast publishers will report to President Bob Sauerberg. This fact was misstated in a previous version of this article, published online July 23, 2014.

Get the Writers Welcome Blog on your Kindle :)))

Resource article:
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140723/MEDIA_ENTERTAINMENT/140729938/anna-wintour-consolidates-her-power-at-condeacute-nast

A Little Psychology on Writers Media

Historically, new inventions (including new technology) have been derided and resisted by many of the entrenched, old-guard types.

Reading about all the different position-camps RE the digital invasion of the publishing world lately and the resulting rapidly changing business models, caused the following article to take on a special meaning for this blogger:

Contributed by Steven Pinker (pictured) to the New York Times:

Mind Over Mass Media

NEW forms of media have always caused moral panics: the printing press, newspapers, paperbacks and television were all once denounced as threats to their consumers’ brainpower and moral fiber.

So too with electronic technologies. PowerPoint, we’re told, is reducing discourse to bullet points. Search engines lower our intelligence, encouraging us to skim on the surface of knowledge rather than dive to its depths. Twitter is shrinking our attention spans.

But such panics often fail basic reality checks. When comic books were accused of turning juveniles into delinquents in the 1950s, crime was falling to record lows, just as the denunciations of video games in the 1990s coincided with the great American crime decline. The decades of television, transistor radios and rock videos were also decades in which I.Q. scores rose continuously.

For a reality check today, take the state of science, which demands high levels of brainwork and is measured by clear benchmarks of discovery. These days scientists are never far from their e-mail, rarely touch paper and cannot lecture without PowerPoint. If electronic media were hazardous to intelligence, the quality of science would be plummeting. Yet discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies, and progress is dizzying. Other activities in the life of the mind, like philosophy, history and cultural criticism, are likewise flourishing, as anyone who has lost a morning of work to the Web site Arts & Letters Daily can attest.

Critics of new media sometimes use science itself to press their case, citing research that shows how “experience can change the brain.” But cognitive neuroscientists roll their eyes at such talk. Yes, every time we learn a fact or skill the wiring of the brain changes; it’s not as if the information is stored in the pancreas. But the existence of neural plasticity does not mean the brain is a blob of clay pounded into shape by experience.

Experience does not revamp the basic information-processing capacities of the brain. Speed-reading programs have long claimed to do just that, but the verdict was rendered by Woody Allen after he read “War and Peace” in one sitting: “It was about Russia.” Genuine multitasking, too, has been exposed as a myth, not just by laboratory studies but by the familiar sight of an S.U.V. undulating between lanes as the driver cuts deals on his cellphone.

Moreover, as the psychologists Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons show in their new book “The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us,” the effects of experience are highly specific to the experiences themselves. If you train people to do one thing (recognize shapes, solve math puzzles, find hidden words), they get better at doing that thing, but almost nothing else. Music doesn’t make you better at math, conjugating Latin doesn’t make you more logical, brain-training games don’t make you smarter. Accomplished people don’t bulk up their brains with intellectual calisthenics; they immerse themselves in their fields. Novelists read lots of novels, scientists read lots of science.

The effects of consuming electronic media are also likely to be far more limited than the panic implies. Media critics write as if the brain takes on the qualities of whatever it consumes, the informational equivalent of “you are what you eat.” As with primitive peoples who believe that eating fierce animals will make them fierce, they assume that watching quick cuts in rock videos turns your mental life into quick cuts or that reading bullet points and Twitter postings turns your thoughts into bullet points and Twitter postings.

Yes, the constant arrival of information packets can be distracting or addictive, especially to people with attention deficit disorder. But distraction is not a new phenomenon. The solution is not to bemoan technology but to develop strategies of self-control, as we do with every other temptation in life. Turn off e-mail or Twitter when you work, put away your Blackberry at dinner time, ask your spouse to call you to bed at a designated hour.

And to encourage intellectual depth, don’t rail at PowerPoint or Google. It’s not as if habits of deep reflection, thorough research and rigorous reasoning ever came naturally to people. They must be acquired in special institutions, which we call universities, and maintained with constant upkeep, which we call analysis, criticism and debate. They are not granted by propping a heavy encyclopedia on your lap, nor are they taken away by efficient access to information on the Internet.

The new media have caught on for a reason. Knowledge is increasing exponentially; human brainpower and waking hours are not. Fortunately, the Internet and information technologies are helping us manage, search and retrieve our collective intellectual output at different scales, from Twitter and previews to e-books and online encyclopedias. Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of “The Stuff of Thought.”