Posted by: Jon Fine on September 5, 2007
This is actually an anticlimax at this point. Reportage about this pending move had been all over the place for months (including on this blog), which must have been great for morale at the magazine. (One anonymous staffer quoted in the Times said that one upside of “the carcass dragged through the streets for the last month” is that many staffers were able to line up jobs.)
The nadir probably came with this Ad Age article, which refers to a meeting in which the widely advanced notion that the magazine would close after its September issue was shot down. Because, staffers were told, there would be an October issue too!
(And there was. Only thing is: Said October issue will be its last.)
This is unusual for Time Inc. While there was long speculation that Time Inc. would shutter Life, but there wasn’t weeks of well-informed writing about it before it happened earlier this year. (Ditto for the recent shuttering of Teen People, in both its print and online-only iterations.)
Recently there were several rounds of Time Inc. layoffs; and at least some were accompanied by the warning that more of the same were to come. Since early summer, Business 2.0 has been twisting slowly in the wind.
Am I the only one to think that the slow-bleed method—or the twist-in-the-wind method—is not the way you want to make changes at your company?