Youth isn't always everything. In Style has decided to scrap its younger spin-off Your Look, a quarterly fashion and beauty title geared toward 16- to 20-year-old readers.

LOOK NO MORE: Youth isn’t always everything. In Style has decided to scrap its younger spin-off Your Look, a quarterly fashion and beauty title geared toward 16- to 20-year-old readers, after a bumpy first two issues. The magazine and its accompanying Web site were launched to attract a younger, stylish audience to In Style and create an interactive community. Your Look asked young women to send in their own photos and looks to its Web site and MySpace profile, and included some of those photos in the print edition. Time Inc. had planned four issues of the quarterly title, but decided that its second issue, which hit newsstands June 8, will be the last. It’s not yet known whether the accompanying Web site,, will live on.

“While we continue to be interested in the young consumer, we have decided to focus our development dollars, talent and resources on and other brand extensions,” said an In Style spokeswoman.

Your Look had its challenges from the beginning. For one, its editor in chief, former Us Weekly fashion director Hayley Hill, left after just one issue, relocating with her family out of New York. Time Inc. editor at large Ariel Foxman, former editor in chief of defunct shopping title Cargo, took over the title. The magazine then morphed into what looked exactly like another People spin-off, Stylewatch, and generally got the thumbs down from media observers.

Nor did the magazine exactly wow advertisers — the first issue carried 24 pages of ads, about half of which already appeared in In Style. The second issue carried just 20 ad pages.

A spokeswoman said Your Look’s first issue would clear its 400,000 rate base. In Style sent the spin-off to current 16- to 20-year-old subscribers of In Style and distributed 425,000 on newsstands. The title carries a $3.49 cover price.

— Stephanie D. Smith

FICKLE TEENS: Speaking of youth, it’s not only the U.S. teen magazine sector that is under pressure. The U.K. edition of Cosmogirl is the latest title headed for the graveyard. The last issue will be published in August, after nearly six years on newsstands. The National Magazine Company Ltd., a subsidiary of Hearst Corp., decided to shutter the title after undergoing a review of its portfolio, which includes Cosmopolitan, Harper’s Bazaar and Esquire. Cosmogirl had a circulation of 131,956 at the end of 2006, according to the British Audit Bureau of Circulations. “We have taken the decision to adjust our publishing structure to provide greater focus on the core clients and audiences served by our publications,” said Jessica Burley, managing director.

This story first appeared in the June 26, 2007 issue of WWD. Subscribe Today.

The company is also shifting its teen online magazine, Jellyfish, into the older age group of 18 to 25. More details on the closure could not be learned by press time; a Hearst spokeswoman directed calls to National Magazine Company, which could not be reached. — Amy Wicks

FRIENDLY COMPETITORS: The August issue of House & Garden carries a Q&A with Martha Stewart that, other than being a rather blatant plug for Stewart’s new product collection at Macy’s, raises a question: Given that Stewart publishes a magazine that is a rival shelter and design title, why promote the competition? Deputy features director Ingrid Abramovitch, who conducted the interview and actually worked for Martha Stewart Living a decade ago, of course had an explanation: “She’s one of the most ambitious makers of houses and gardens, so there were a lot of questions that we wanted to ask her that her own magazine wouldn’t delve into.” For example, Stewart’s own magazine would be unlikely to press her, as Abramovitch did, about whether her time in prison had affected her design aesthetic. The answer, for the curious, is “Not really,” though Stewart did offer up some architectural history of the federal penitentiary. — Irin Carmon

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus