Did the Internet Kill 'Gourmet' Magazine?
Or, 'I'm Mad as Hell and I'm Not Going to Take This Anymore!'
I've listened to all the heartfelt obits for Gourmet I can at this moment. My emotional and intellectual hard-drive is full. The final straw was Cook's Illustrated editor Chris Kimball's piece on the op-ed page of the New York Times this morning.
Kimball's not-so-subtle, sledgehammer-like thesis: The ignorant, inexperienced, and untrained internet masses masquerading as journalists killed Gourmet. How do we plead, Mr. Kimball? Not guilty. Not in the least, as a matter of fact, as Hamilton Nolan so aptly noted on Gawker.
Kimball in the Times:
The shuttering of Gourmet reminds us that in a click-or-die advertising marketplace, one ruled by a million instant pundits, where an anonymous Twitter comment might be seen to pack more resonance and useful content than an article that reflects a lifetime of experience, experts are not created from the top down but from the bottom up. They can no longer be coronated; their voices have to be deemed essential to the lives of their customers. That leaves, I think, little room for the thoughtful, considered editorial with which Gourmet delighted its readers for almost seven decades.
As Nolan points out, "The internet loves experts. And it loves thoughtful, considered editorial. If it's presented correctly."
Kimball's solution:
To survive, those of us who believe that inexperience rarely leads to wisdom need to swim against the tide, better define our brands, prove our worth, ask to be paid for what we do, and refuse to climb aboard this ship of fools, the one where everyone has an equal voice.
As Nolan notes, democracy is not always pretty or neat: "Perez Hilton notwithstanding, there's no reason why smart things can't thrive on the internet. The democratic aspect of the internet that's so terrifying to the old guard is not one that means that every opinion is equal; it just means that every opinion can be equally heard. The good stuff can still rise to the top."
I wrote for Gourmet and the New York Times for many years before I founded Serious Eats, and I have profound respect and admiration for both publications and the talented and hard-working journalists who work (or, in the case of Gourmet, worked) there. Many of them are, in fact, my friends. I have tried to bring with me to Serious Eats the same standards and ethics and skills I learned writing for those publications, and I try to instill those same standards and skills in the many smart, talented, and responsible journalists contributing to Serious Eats.
Everything that appears on the internet is not created equal. There's lots of smart, responsible journalism being practiced on Serious Eats and other sites like it. And then there's a bunch of stuff on the internet and in the blogosphere that's not so smart and not so responsible. Kind of like print or any other kind of journalism, I guess. But just as in print journalism, as Nolan points out, the good stuff does rise to the top.
Maybe, just maybe, journalists and their bosses who work at the old guard who are justifiably terrified about the ground shifting beneath them, shouldn't be so quick to judge internet-based journalism with a single brush stroke.
So let's make a journalistic mutual proliferation pact: If you promise and acknowledge not to unilaterally judge or tar the internet with a single brush stroke of condemnation, I'll do the same. We all want to do the same thing, we're all fighting the good fight, we all want people to eat seriously delicious food and make educated decisions about what they are eating. To unilaterally impugn our motives, deride our methods and the over-all quality of our work, does everyone a disservice.
The internet didn't kill Gourmet. And Ruth Reichl and her immensely talented staff didn't, either. What did? Condé Nast's inability to develop an effective, coherent digital strategy. And, oh yes, the fact that the powers that be at Conde Nast built a house for the magazine that they could no longer make the payments on. And neither of those things are my fault.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
42 Comments:
The rules of publishing do not apply to the internet. Many of us are not edited. Many of us use pretty photos of decorated baked goods shot against airy white to lure readers and click. Any decent online reader would quit using such resources after 1 batch of crappy cup cakes.
Cantaloupe Alone at 2:29PM on 10/08/09
Personally, I find the problem rests mainly with Rachel Ray and 30 minute meals. The food-related content market has been trashed and thrashed by people who value expediency over real cuisine. Semi-Homemade Cooking... 30 Minute Meals... I remember when television food programming used to be worthwhile. Back when you could actually learn to cook a great meal, not just a quickie mish-mash of half-hearted slop.
FlavorCountry at 2:30PM on 10/08/09
Conde Nast is out to make money. They have no incentive to keep a publication with a nitch audience. The same thing happened to Domino. Quality will survive no matter what the medium, the real issue is that conventional publishing is largely controlled by a few companies who are motivated by the bottom line.
littlepaperheart at 2:33PM on 10/08/09
Gourmet failed because it couldn't compete in an environment full of new participants (blogs) - but don't blame the market participants - blame the market forces - the same forces that once brought Gourmet its success. Kimball's cry-baby letter is a cathartic exercise on behalf of all journalists who understandably don't want to see their medium go away. However, there is still good journalism to be created - it just may be in a new shape and form and be governed by new rules.
The market place of ideas generally weeds out the bad journalism (the 'fools') and rewards the good ones. And if there is a large enough demand for the kind of journalism that Kimball considers worthy of his standards, and if the only way to get it is to pay for it, then these superior journalists will get paid for their work.
Kimball can have a little cry but then he should take a good look at reality and stop whining. Serious Eats, Orangette, Smitten Kitchen, David Lebovitz - are each examples of blogs that have learned to excel in the new environment, have captured the delight of readers and have put out quality journalism.
laurelie at 2:56PM on 10/08/09
I'm not a food writer, but I read a lot of food articles on the internet, and occasionally in magazines.
The internet is full of crap. Magazines are full of crap. Mostly I'll stay on the internet, following my nose and my instincts and the articles that interest me
As I've giving up on newspapers, I've given up on magazines. When there is more advertising than information (hello Conde Nast) they've lost me.
I am sorry to see a great old magazine like Gourmet die, but if it can't survive in this new environment, it's best for all.
jerryg at 2:57PM on 10/08/09
Blaming the internet for the demise of Gourmet (or anything else, for that matter) is a self-serving, short-sighted and pointless tantrum. Markets are fluid. Consumers pay for value. When the value dissipates, the market votes with its dollars. Progress hinges on the evolution of product and service.
Combustion engines killed the buggy whip business. PC's made secretaries of us all.
mrsdebdav at 3:02PM on 10/08/09
And, oh yes, the fact that the powers that be at Conde Nast built a house for the magazine that they could no longer make the payments on.
Ding, ding, ding!!!
Also, putting the internet issue aside, I think Gourmet has been pretty mediocre since RR took over. I didn't like the overall design, and I don't think the magazine had a real sense of purpose. It wasn't a practical magazine for home cooks like Cooks Illustrated or Bon Appettite, and it wasn't as interesting (IMHO of course) as Saveur. It almost seemed to be a fashion magazine about food, and I'm not sure what audience that appealed to.
rps at 3:08PM on 10/08/09
Maybe Conde Nast would have been more successful with these titles if they hadn't spent so much on status symbols and actually focused on the markets for their products. Seriously, why would I care about seeing their management team partying with celebrities or that they can enjoy lunch in a Frank Gehry designed cafeteria? Funny that there is no mention of subscriber or financial data in this article since from what I've heard mismanagement at the corporate level had a much bigger hand in this than Kimball acknowledges.
On another note, Kimball has to realize that statements like this make him sound like a complete *sshole: "a respect for those who had earned the chops, as it were, who had a lifetime of good breeding and experience in order to stand at the cultural helm". Hearing someone use the expression good breeding makes my blood boil. Maybe that's part of the problem, thinking that "standing at the cultural helm" is more important than giving customers what they want.
It annoys the hell out of me that instead of taking a critical look at their business model and that of the parent company, he calls for a blogger ethics panel. The funny part is that he actually hints at the problem in the third paragraph but then proceeds to spout nonsense for the rest of the editorial.
sloppy at 3:14PM on 10/08/09
One of the ironies in Gourmet folding is that there seems to be an uptick in interest in cooking. I'm guessing that Gourmet has done nothing to expand its audience, and not a lot to change its cuisine. And some of Gourmet's old audience has left for more interesting pastures.
I think Christopher Kimball (whose programs I adore) is speaking to himself (and knows he is) when he acknowledges that magazines need to shape up or they'll be shipped out. And when he says magazines need to refuse to climb on board the ship of fools he's a little late. His current content is available for free online.
lemonfair at 3:15PM on 10/08/09
oh, and he might as well blame Sesame street as the internet. Part of what he is saying (and FlavorCountry is saying) is that the present attention span may be too short to support lengthy articles. That is suggested by twitter, isn't it?
lemonfair at 3:17PM on 10/08/09
I live Chris's TV show, but his website is a pay only service (as far as I know). Yes, if you want everything for free you'll have to filter out some of the nonsense, but I have trouble paying for something I can fairly easily get for free.
Also, I signed up for a three year subscription to Food & Wine, paid for that three year subscription, and then stopped receiving the magazine after a year. I barely read them anyway. Two points: If someone is paying you for something, you better damn well deliver, and why should we pay for a few dozen recipes that we receive only once a month, that we may or may not be interested in when we can access exactly what we're interested in anytime?
schmonsequences at 3:46PM on 10/08/09
Don't discount what Kimball said. It not only applies to the demise of Gourmet Magazine, but to the news/journalism in general.
QueenAlli at 4:08PM on 10/08/09
To me one of the key things is that there are no barriers to entry on the internet so there are far more choices for whose blog to read, you don't necessarily need a printed publication to go to as an information source. That said, I work for a highly targeted, very specific niche publication that is also web based but right now has limited distribution. I think there is a place for print. I personally like to carry a magazine or a book for that matter around with me, I like the tactility of newspapers. But I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, that Conde Nast had no internet strategy. I read the NYT on-line now. I guess the jury is not out yet but they seem to be making progress in the issue of print/internet.
The internet inherently has competitive advantages, low start-up costs, ability to make changes quickly(I see that with the magazine I work on, so much time goes into the production and layout)you take a magazine with the history of Gourmet, I am sure the ability to make changes came at a snail's pace, versus a website or blog and finally the interactivity of the internet, comments sections, polls, the ability to create a web community, all that draws peoples attention and time and interest versus buying a magazine on a news stand.
Finally, I somewhat agree w/ JerryG, I let my nose and instincts guide me as to what I read on the internet and I don't need to spend money to do it. SO it is very sad to see Gourmet shut its doors but change can be hard.
Jbout at 4:09PM on 10/08/09
@lemonfair
I do agree with your first point about Gourmet, but re: Cook's content, it is actually not available online for free. The Cook's website has a yearly subscription cost (I believe it's something like $20/year). They do give away a few teaser videos and recipes for free, but the bulk of the content is behind a pay wall.
@schmonsqeuences
"Two points: If someone is paying you for something, you better damn well deliver, and why should we pay for a few dozen recipes that we receive only once a month, that we may or may not be interested in when we can access exactly what we're interested in anytime?"
You pay because when you pay for a subscription to a magazine like Cook's Illustrated, you are paying for the guarantee that every recipe printed will work, and will taste good - something that not one in a hundred internet recipes can say.
I think Chris' point has been misread, and quoted out of context. If you read the whole editorial with a more open eye, I think it's clear that he's not necessarily blaming the internet for the demise of Gourmet. What he is saying is that because the internet is such an open forum, it means that suddenly, everybody has a place to have their voice be heard. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but he's calling upon readers and lovers of food to raise their standards higher, demand more from the internet writers, and find a way to help them get paid for it.
Yes, the internet does have quite a few good writers out there, but I've yet to see a pay scheme that compensates them for their writing in the way that a magazine used to be able to. To me, the falling of Gourmet signals that in the next five years or so, until we come up with a way to give good writers the credit and money they deserve, we are going to be in a black hole of food writing. More and more good writers are going to find things to do in fields which award them for their intelligence until one day, the readers are going to wonder where all the good writing has gone, then suddenly realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
J. Kenji Lopez-Alt at 4:12PM on 10/08/09
We first subscribed to Gourmet in the 1970's. It was a marvelous magazine, with strong, literate writing, and echoes of the old authors, like lillian langseth-christensen. Later, it changed hands, and went downhill and became something you saw at the checkout line, with ads on the outer columns of both pages and text buried deep near the binding. It wasn't the Internet that killed it. It committed suicide.
Eadwacer at 5:27PM on 10/08/09
excellent synopsis Ed.
"The ignorant, inexperienced, and untrained internet masses masquerading as journalists killed Gourmet."
WTF does he not realze the fundamentals of economics 101??
demand creates supply
Foodies found something better; sorry Mr. Kimball.
As for the celebrity side?
I don't follow tmz, hollywood or any of that people jazz.
I think foodies (espcially Seaters) like to converse about options, freely. without your "approval" of savvyness Mr. K.
life sux sometimes, donut Mr K? :D LOL
hungrychristel at 5:34PM on 10/08/09
I adore Cook's Illustrated but all of the whining about the internet killing magazines/newspapers is getting ridiculous. Granted there is a ton of crap online but it's much more fun to weed through it there than in a magazine that you're paying for. Gourmet was a decent magazine for many years but Conde Nast didn't do much to keep it up to date with a changing market. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Kimball and others like him are slowly realizing that they need to change with the times. While there is a ton of crap online there are several well written food blogs, many of which are written by people that have full time jobs doing things other than recipe testing and food writing. I think it's kind of funny that some of the people that are being paid to do it are having issues figuring out how to adapt. Set aside some time in your day for constructive brainstorming to save your brand and stop wasting your time complaining about that dern technolergy they call the internets.
jt3_11 at 5:57PM on 10/08/09
You know what's strange, is that I thought Gourmet had one of the better web presences of the major food mags. Between its main site and its association with Epicurious, I figured it would flourish online if the print version ceased to be. But it looks like they're shutting Gourmet.com down, as well.
Why not give it a shot? The publication overhead would presumably be much less, and RR's staff can maintain the same level of journalism they did in print. After all, McLuhan aside, it's the media's that's changed, not the message.
Kristen Swensson at 6:48PM on 10/08/09
Though I love his recipes, books and articles, as well as what he's done with the magazines and broadcast ventures he brought to life, I did think that in this op-ed piece, Chris Kimball did sound like the Walrus of Lewis Carroll fame. And Ed and others are right - it wasn't the internet that killed Gourmet, or a lack of vision that killed Gourmet, it was the inability to see and think straight, and to keep its focus on food and the in which direction foodies were turning. It became more of a travel/luxury lifestyle magazine rather than an exploration of food and cooking. And with so many alternatives in so many media - in broadcast, book publishing, as well as other food magazines, it Gourmet didn't refresh its outlook - it just became more irrelevant as it ignored many trends in cooking and dining. Advertisers and readers went elsewhere (including me about 8-10 years ago). And for at least a few months, I'd been getting subscription solicitations in the mail charging $6.00 for 12 issues - a sign of desperation, and an indication that readers were moving elsewhere
MMinNYC at 7:19PM on 10/08/09
the people who say that gourmet was irrelevant clearly were not subscribers in recent years. ruth reichl brought, i thought, an amazing modern touch to the magazine, and a thoughtful, open presence. i made several recipes from every issue, from their "quick weeknight" recipes to their more involved, challenging recipes that i saved for a weekend night when i had more time. as for the topic at hand, the internet didn't kill gourmet — it was the accounting department.
franko at 7:39PM on 10/08/09
"The publication overhead would presumably be much less, and RR's staff can maintain the same level of journalism they did in print."
Except that it's tough to maintain the same level of journalism when you are no longer being paid the same amount to do so. Journalists are people with jobs, and jobs need money to survive - something which we need to figure out a way to apply to the internet if we want good journalism to survive!
J. Kenji Lopez-Alt at 7:41PM on 10/08/09
If I go online, I can find recipes and suggestions from people who have been, for example, cooking traditional Vietnamese food for their entire lives. If I go to magazines, maybe I find something interesting and maybe I don't - but the key thing is that I don't find exactly what I'm looking for. On the internet, the quality is a gamble, but I know enough to sort through half a dozen pho broth recipes to find one that will work - ie, EXACTLY what I'm looking for as opposed to just a nice read. Cook's is lovely, and they do good work. But when I want a recipe, I want to just go get it.
leilah at 7:42PM on 10/08/09
Gourmet died at its own hand... I have been a subscriber for years and years (since college!!) and, while still a huge fan of the magazine, had noticed a decline in the quality of both the writing and the recipes over the last 5 years.
On the other hand- I think Christopher Kimball is a complete prat. I cancelled my sub. to Cooks Illustrated after the infamous, "you may not reprint our recipe" episode that was all over the web several months ago. Fine Cooking is my current go to mag for ideas. Well, that and the web. :-)
sbelle at 8:35PM on 10/08/09
I'll take davidlebovitz.com, 101cookbooks.com, and seriouseats.com over some random twitter post any day. And I think they all make money off my visits. Yes, the good still rises to the top.
sorahatch at 11:14PM on 10/08/09
If he thinks the internet is the problem then I would be happy if he would stop sending me email promoting his books and magazines.
Michael Z at 1:05AM on 10/09/09
I see it this way. I am a person who has been around the culinary word magazine, tv, internet, books for decades. A devotee one might say. I subscribed to all of them.
There are many, many pretty blogs on online and some of them are just that "pretty" and their content is crappola. The content is just pedestrian at best. I am not going to name names because there are positive things to be said of many of these very blogs that I find lacking in the cooking/baking depts but they have redeemable qualities.
When you go throwing out names like David Lebovitz and then the names of people who take pretty pictures of food, it is insulting. David is a professional pastry chef and author. Bloggers as much as we hold on a pedestal are currently all trying to get their stuff out there and as much as I love to read baking bloggers, cooking bloggers and food blogging in general, often it disappoints me. Why? Because the last place in the world you want to hone your craft is in PUBLIC. There I said it!!
Example: When someone blogs about a quiche recipe from Thomas Keller (One I have made dozens of times without a hitch) and said blogger tells the free world they flubbed it, they did it again and the second time it was not so great so it must be the recipe, they have just sealed their fate.
I made the Thomas Keller quiche and it was great, it was freaking amazing, people demand for me to make it. Said blogger totally panned Thomas Keller (a successful restaurant owner, chef, author) and did it on their blog because they do not have the skill it requires to make that quiche, they have set the tone for everything else they post. Now I cannot read that very blog because I do not believe the gaul said blogger had to chastize a great recipe/Chef because they are lacking in skill but certainly not in veracity or the ability to post pretty pictures of their flub on the freaking internet.
Now you might say jerz what does all this mean? It means this. The blogosphere is just not the same as published, skilled culinary professionals. You cannot use the name of a blog/blogger and one of a chef, food author in the same sentence or in the same manner. I don't give two shits if a blogger has a book out because they had "buzz" and site hits and talked at freaking blogher or were on a talk show. You are mixing apples and oranges. Full stop!!! Blogging is in fashion and it will go out of fashion. The Eater article was not without merit. There are too many fish in the pond. Eventually how many people can you read about making the same damn cake. How many pictures of it do I have to look at on tastespotting? The blogs will thin out in time the fashion just has to pass.
A celebrated blogger is not a chef (although some chefs are bloggers, thank God). They are people who are taking pretty pictures, telling stories and creating buzz to sell themselves. To me this is the skip to Go and collect your 200 bucks. This is precisely why I do not blog. I have watched thousands of others take beautiful pictures of crap food and bad mistakes from good recipes. I have listened while bloggers pan great cookbooks/recipes because they are not capable of the skill they require and I have seen "propaganda" used to ellevate blogdom to some high level which is totally bogus and unearned by many.
Twitter is bullshit, I hate it, it reeks of self promotion. This is the era of self promotion. When this passes only the strong will survive. You will all get bored of the food blogosphere the same way you got tired of Food Network and Gourmet.
As for Conde Nast, I am not surprised they screwed up Gourmet. As I have said in past posts sucking down Risotto with underwear models did not a magazine make. It sucked and you know who is always to blame, the editor. No one blames the airline when the plane crashes they blame the pilot. Her talented staff picked out the shabby chic DKNY easter dinner photo shoot which to me was the same as the talking dummies on the Old Navy commercial.
Food writing as we know it has been dumbed down. It is a trend and it will pass. Rachel Ray's magazine is a huge success do you need any more proof than that?
As for Chris Kimball, I like him. Why? Because he is not full of shit. he may in fact be a prat but I like him. I read CI for one thing, nuts and bolts and unbiased reviews because CI does not sell advertising. Aren't you tired of being spoon fed trends. I am. Whew rant over...
JerzeeTomato at 1:24AM on 10/09/09
bah, humbug Kimball.
dhorst at 7:52AM on 10/09/09
Blaming the internet for the demise of Gourmet (or anything else, for that matter) is a self-serving, short-sighted and pointless tantrum. Markets are fluid. Consumers pay for value. When the value dissipates, the market votes with its dollars. Progress hinges on the evolution of product and service. Combustion engines killed the buggy whip business. PC's made secretaries of us all.
@ Mrsdebdav.... right on!
I have flipped through Gourmet a time or two... I wished I could say I remember when it was good.
Pavlov at 7:57AM on 10/09/09
@leilah and maybe some others re: getting exactly what you're looking for--
The advantage to magazines (and, for that matter, sites like this one) is that sometimes you don't have something specific in mind, and you just want inspiration. Sometimes I know what I want to cook, and sometimes I'm looking for something new to do with that pork chop sitting in the meat drawer, and if I just type "pork chop" into Google I'm not going to get very far.
sidebernie at 8:26AM on 10/09/09
@jerzeetomato
Perfect rant! And exactly what I'm thinking.
J. Kenji Lopez-Alt at 10:19AM on 10/09/09
@rps
Ding, ding, ding for you, too!!!
The fashion magazine analogy is quite apt. I was a long term subscriber to Gourmet through the '90s until about 2002. I even kept my subscription going when I moved to France with the cheese company I worked for. I can't say if I changed or if the magazine changed but I realized that it was a magazine about places I would never visit and food I would never cook, first and foremost, because I couldn't afford them. Just like a fashion magazine, they started to make me feel poor and ugly and unworthy of what I saw in the magazine. Aspiration is one thing but paying to feel insulted is not my thing. I read food magazines to become better at what I love, not to read about how fabulous someone's expense account trip was to Fiji.
jfultz at 10:39AM on 10/09/09
@ littlepaperheart
I do believe you meant "niche," not nitch.
bearsonawire at 12:14PM on 10/09/09
I can't say if I changed or if the magazine changed but I realized that it was a magazine about places I would never visit and food I would never cook, first and foremost, because I couldn't afford them. Just like a fashion magazine, they started to make me feel poor and ugly and unworthy of what I saw in the magazine.
Well said. I was flipping through an issue of Gourmet in the book store a couple years ago and noticed a photo spread with a bunch of 20 something hipsters (models of course), eating a "southern" meal with pulled pork sandwiches. The whole thing just struck me as absurd.
rps at 1:11PM on 10/09/09
No, the internet didn't kill Gourmet. What killed Gourmet was greed. The ridiculous advertising aimed at the richest 2% of the population is what killed Gourmet. Not to mention competition from Saveur (which has suffered lately, too and better get it together before they succumb). There are so many more foodie mags out now than when Gourmet began - it makes me sad that Gourmet couldn't keep up. RIP Gourmet.
therealchiffonade at 2:43PM on 10/09/09
So there you have it. As much as any of us love and admire our peers in any group sometimes they make bad choices. Often we talked about Gourmet on here. Often the majority said they were not happy with the way it had gone and was going. I don't know a more solid demographic/focus group than this esteemed group. One of the things that takes you down the wrong path in any customer driven business is taking your finger off the pulse or trying to fix that which is not broken. Gourmet did both.
Bad business. If Ruth did not agree with CN that was something she had to deal with herself, none of us can speculate why. It is what it is for now.
JerzeeTomato at 2:45PM on 10/09/09
I thought this piece was excellent commentary. I couldn't agree more.
bookscooks at 4:14PM on 10/09/09
I agree with some of the posters who have mentioned Goumet wasn't that great of a magazine anymore. I love to cook, and Gourmet was pretty to look at but I rarely ever found any recipes that I wanted to try. Either the ingredients were too obscure (and I live in a very large metro. area where there are tons of food stores) or too expensive. I hate to say it, but the few recipes I tried usually were not things I would make again (probably had more to do with my cooking skills).
paperchaseuk at 10:38AM on 10/10/09
Kimball is an ass and America's Test Kitchen just got deleted from my DVR...
Truff at 10:24PM on 10/10/09
Chris Kimball is in need of a colonoscopy. He's full of a "lot of stuff", and most of it belongs in the toilet.
Boscompb at 8:04PM on 10/16/09
More evidence that Ruth Reichl is pure class.
therealchiffonade at 3:17PM on 10/17/09
I paid in advance for a subscription to Cook's Illustrated - I never received a single issue - But, now I have had several bills from Cook's Country for a subscription that I didn't order and haven't received. Mr. Kimball is out for the bucks and not paying attention to the mechanics of distribution. To me, this denigrates the quality they are so proud of. I have balked at paying for their Internet site and wish it was offered at no cost.
I do watch them on TV quite often and like the shows - It appears that Kimball runs a tight kitchen and leaves the mechanics of print distribution somewhere in the midwest to careless management.
I will miss Gourmet in many ways just like I missed Laurie Colwin and Lilliam Langseth Christensen. Newbies, there, are good too, but the cost of publishing and distribution are big and when you see the book at the supermarket for nearly $ 5.00 an issue, you hesitate before putting it into the cart. I can purchase a whole used cookbook on the used book internet sites for that amount. Economics prevail!
Some blogs are worth reading - others are nonsense.One has to be selective or have insomnia. I read this site's content to keep up with trends and new ideas. It's, of course, NYC oriented, but that's not all bad.
Just keep on giving content worth reading. This is a good thread!
suegsf at 3:17PM on 10/18/09
I loved Gourmet, and there are also food blogs that I refer to almost daily. There's room for both, if the quality is there. Ironically, the person who best expressed my feelings about the death of Gourmet is a food blogger: http://www.oneforthetable.com/oftt/stories/goodbye-gourmet.html.
koshercurry at 9:36AM on 10/21/09