Media

Portfolio.com Editor's Departure: It's Not What You Think (It's Worse?)

When Women's Wear Daily reported last week that Chris Jones, the managing editor of Portfolio.com, was resigning, he appeared to be another casualty of a magazine in crisis. Was Mr. Jones joining Jim Impoco in heading for the exits after failing to see eye-to-eye with top Portfolio editor Joanne Lipman?

The answer appears to be no. But Mr. Jones’ departure may still tell us something about the fledgling glossy’s growing pains. According to two people familiar with the situation, the editor left because he believed that the growing influence of the magazine’s business team was compromising its editorial independence.

According to two sources at Portfolio, the general manager of digital media, Ari Brandt, formerly of Yahoo!, has been increasingly trying to assert control over the Web site, which was originally expected to be run jointly by the editorial and business sides. In recent weeks, Mr. Brandt has been suggesting that the business side should have a bigger role in the Web site and, said one source, has been using the phrase "return of investment programming" to argue that the site's content should be evaluated on its ability to generate page visits and hits, rather than its journalistic quality.

Since it launched, Portfolio.com has been an exception for a Condé Nast publication, in that it hasn't been used primarily as a tool to boost subscribers, but rather as an extension of the magazine's editorial voice. Could that be changing?

Mr. Brandt did not return a call for comment, and David Carey, the magazine's publisher, declined to comment for this story.

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Anonymousse (not verified) says:

Johnny:
1) it's "return ON investment" and 2) isn't media/publishing a business? and 3) if it is a business, isn't the goal to be profitable?

Anonymous2 (not verified) says:

How weird that a website focused on business would want to run their operations like an actual business and hold people accountable to deliver.

Anonymous2 (not verified) says:

How weird that a website focused on business would want to run their operations like an actual business and hold people accountable to deliver.

davidscarey (not verified) says:

clearly there's a douchebag on your boards ... i don't think the story is arguing that the business not have a seat at the table. the point is that editorial not lose theirs. duh

Anonymoose (not verified) says:

Sounds strange to me that the general manager of digital media wouldn't want to assert more control over the web site.

justvisitin (not verified) says:

here comes slate to blow them outta the water ... they dont have a chance

coincidence? (not verified) says:

appears to be a condenast bot loose on your boards. theres no way "anonymousse" and "anonymoose" are two different people!! could it be that someone wants to make their side of the argument more compelling by spamming the forum? at any rate, i dunno bout the sites chances given the mag seems to be weakning

Floatonymous (not verified) says:

not sure who's the douche, but the story is actually not saying anything of value. not worth the url it's printed on.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.