When Conde Nast pulled the plug on 68-year old Gourmet Magazine last October after ad revenues plunged with the economy, people who loved the publication, and others who scorned it, believed they’d seen the last of it.  At least, the last of new content, as many subscribers saved complete sets of back issues, donated them to libraries, and you can find the complete archives online – interesting for a publication that many of its detractors insisted was the epitome of snobbishness.

Well, Gourmet lives again…but not in print.  Conde Nast has announced the development of digital product called “Gourmet Live”, due to launch in Q4 of this year.  The new version is not an e-Zine, but a downloadable app, which will bring users to a mix of content which includes articles, recipes, slideshows, videos, etc.  Social media is incorporated – users can see which of their connections has viewed something and what they have said about it.  Although app download will be free, once a certain usage level has been hit, paid membership will be required.

The question of “who is the intended audience?” comes to mind immediately, because exactly what the content will be and where it is coming from seems a bit uncertain.  The Gourmet site promises a “new experience”, while an Associated Press article mentions buying credits which would allow users to access collections of recipes.  Since the current Gourmet recipe archives are available online to anyone already, it would seem that Conde Nast is planning to acquire other recipe archives – or stop making their own available, which may anger former subscribers.

Mediapost.com mentions that some content will come from the archives, some fresh content will come from independent “producers” that Conde Nast will hire, but they also speculate that Bon Appetit staffers and Epicurious interns might wind up doing more than anyone will admit now.  This all takes me back to – who is the intended audience?  Because, the initial thought, at least, is that this aimed at wooing back some of their old subscribers, which were about a million strong.  But, if basic content is coming from the archives, subscribers have seen it before, can access it online now and may have it in print at home.  If at least a significant portion of the new content winds up coming from Bon Appetit staffers, these are writers from a magazine that Gourmet subscribers do not like.

It’s not that reviving Gourmet as “Gourmet Live” is a bad idea, it’s not.  But if the aim is to attract their old subscribers, a significant proportion of the content has to be new and the magazine should stay away from using staff from their remaining food publications.  In any case, now that they have made the decision to go into this format, especially with their emphasis on the social networking aspects, there may be a significant new audience out there who was turned off by the imagined “snobbishness” – so why limit their sights?
 

Sources: MediaPost.com, Raw, Live and Unadulterated, ‘Gourmet’ Mag To Live Again (Well, Sort Of), Posted June 22, 2010 by John Capone.  Associated Press, Gourmet brand, dead as magazine, returns as an app, June 22, 2010, by Andrew Vanacore.  Wall Street Journal, Digits, Technology News and Insights, App Watch: Gourmet Magazine Being Revived — Sort Of,  June 22, 2010, by Russell Adams.

Back in 1979, the Buggles told us that “Video killed the Radio Star” – and after the video for their song became the first ever played on MTV at midnight on August 1, 1981, they turned out to be right.  However, it took the ability to download songs directly off the internet to change the way music business operated.

Now, the internet may be a driving force behind a change in U.S. car culture – one which is seeing fewer members of Gen Y take to the roads.  According to an article that appeared in both Advertising Age and Automotive News (Crain Publications siblings), the trend has been building for 15 years, but 20-somethings were under-indexing on driving (total highway miles) in 2009, when they were over-indexing as a percentage of the population in 1995.

So, what does the internet have to do with it?  Well, if you ask Gen-Y, it doesn’t, not directly, anyway.  They’ll tell you their concern for the environment has taken them off the road, so if they are buying via e-commerce and iPhone apps, instead of driving to big box stores, it isn’t because they are yearning to bring back Main Street Mom & Pop stores so they can drive there – it’s because they prefer to shop via the internet.

In terms of commuting, or longer trips that would require a car, if they are in a place where they can do it, they prefer to take the train, because it allows them to use the time to work, connected to the internet , which hasn’t been possible in a car, although systems  like Ford’s Sych allow for other kinds of connectivity.  Some cars, such as the Audi A8, will offer internet access with this year.  However, few 20-somethings will be able to afford – or will want to buy – the A8, even with the internet access.  While the car used to symbolize freedom to most Americans – the fact that it can’t offer constant access to the kind of technology many 20-somethings now view as freeing may mean the end of that view for the younger generation.

There is some thought that when the economy picks up and more people go back to work or when Gen Y ages a bit and has children which require things like minivans to take them to soccer games, etc., driving may appeal more to younger people – and that may be true, but it seems like a love affair with the car may have been replaced by a love affair with other technology for a generation.

The economic downturn has not been kind to many firms in the premium sector - but not all luxury brands have struggled. Here at Intelliga, we were interested to read an article in Newsweek which looked at companies which have bucked the trend, and actually experienced growth. The article, Classic to the Core, explains that they have achieved this by strategies we stress to all our clients: having a strong brand, sticking faithfully to the brand image and majoring on quality and exclusivity.

The article looks at luxury brands – mostly fashion brands – that have seen varying degrees of success in navigating the global financial crisis and discusses the reasons why some have prospered while others have seen sales decline or, like fashion house Christian Lacroix, have gone under.  The article cites a study by Bain and Company that found the luxury market fell 10% in the US and 8% globally in 2009 – the first time the overall market for luxuries ever declined.

However, Hermès sales grew 8.5% worldwide in 2009, and turned in an 11% increase in Q4, while LVMH’s flagship brand, Louis Vuitton, also had a good 2009, enjoying double-digit growth.  What did these brands do?  They focused on “what they do best – classic bags and scarves for Hermès, old-fashioned luggage for Louis Vuitton”. There were no discounts, trendy product introductions or attempts to go downmarket.  Hermès even opened a new store in Manhattan in February – the brand’s first men’s store.

Apparently, for some brands, luxury isn’t dead, or even in hibernation, it has just gone back to an emphasis on quality, classic and more conservative items.  Consumers who may have bought more trendy and conspicuous items are moving back to “tried-and-true stalwarts”.

Famous luxury brands with more extrovert products that experienced sales declines shouldn’t worry, though.  NYU Professor Scott Galloway, who studies luxury marketing, believes the market for 'conspicuous consumption' items such as Porsches and Manolo Blahniks, which are classics, will rebound as soon as people have money in their pockets again.  There are people who could buy these items – they have been not been doing so because they don’t want to be seen as crass.  And the Bain study indicates that even if the market for some products never recovers to previous levels in the US, markets such as China, India and Brazil will more than make up for it – and there will probably be lots of room for less conservative items.

Salon.com features an interview with Columbia University business professor Sheena Iyengar, whose new book, “The Art of Choosing”, examines the way our personal expectations influence American thinking about personal choice.

She explains that Americans are asked to think about choices, from topics such as what we want to eat to what we want to be when we grow up, from a very early age, because we value self-expression and “in this country, self expression is primarily exercised through personal choice”. Other countries she discusses stress following directions in early childhood, not the independence and personal choice of America.

So, why is this important? Well, she also notes that having too many choices can lead to issues, whether it is ‘bad choices’ or outcomes that were not intended. While she only deals with the possible political and social implications on Salon (not surprising), the Editorial Review on amazon.com (Publishers Weekly) cites a case from her own research where shoppers shown 24 jams were only 1/10 as likely to purchase as those who were shown only six. In this case, the size of the consideration set did matter and certainly, the size or set-up of a shelf set is not something that should be causing consumers to turn away.

It’s not clear from the article or the review why certain choices, at least in the consumer arena, cause people to not buy or buy “incorrectly”. Whether it is lack of information, lack of brand or flavor preference or price differential, there’s not the information here to make that determination. But, it’s something that brands who are looking to expand their consumer consideration set should, well, consider.

RJ Metrics provided data analyses for Twitter last fall and again early this year, with the latest data running through the end of 2009 and updating the information for users and engagements. It’s very valuable insight on trends and potential audience on this major social networking venue and while I urge you to read the latest report at your leisure, here’s a summary:

There’s good and bad news in the topline results for the end of 2009. Total Twitter accounts are up to a little over 75 million. While new accounts were still being added at about 2-3 per second, or 6.2 million a month, that’s down about 20% from July 2009, which was the peak for new accounts.

40% have created an account but never tweeted, 25% have no followers, and 80% have tweeted less than 10 times, which means most people who have joined are inactive or barely active. Also, on a percentage basis, December 2009 was the lowest month for activity in Twitter history, as only 17% of accounts sent anything. However, it’s important to remember that this is 17% of the growing base of accounts, and further analysis indicates that those who come back become “more engaged” over time (see below).

The results include a cohort analysis of Unique Tweeters to understand their behavior and loyalty over time. Essentially, it resembles CPG Panel Trial and Repeat analysis and groups them into the week they first Tweeted (Trial) and then looks at when and how often they return (Repeat). About 20% of those who actually send come back and remain active, however, once grouped by month and looked at total content sent (not just whether they sent at all), that 20% becomes more active over time, and, as the report notes, “tweet so much that it makes up for all the people who left”.

The results point out that if 20% of 75 million accounts are active users, that means there are around 15 million people out there who are “highly active tweeters”. To put that in perspective, take a quick look back at the average ratings and viewership for the 2009 NBA Finals on ABC, which, according to the NBA’s press release, “dominat(ed) prime time”. The average rating was 8.4, with 9.6 million Hhds and a little over 14 million viewers. That would put average viewers for the Lakers vs. the Magic below the number of truly active Twitter users.

Data sources: Twitter: Compiled by RJ Metrics, via Twitter’s application programming interface (API) data, in December 2009. Accessed 2 million Tweets from 50,000 users to compile the analysis. NBA ratings: NBA PR release, June 16th 2009