On how he would describe the status of magazine media today from Bauer's point of view: As you know, Bauer is a very unique company in that 90 percent of the revenue comes from our readers, so I wouldn't say that we're typical or a bellwether. From our perspective the state of media is obviously a challenging industry, but for us it's strong. Our readers still connect with our products. Our concern is gatekeepers; it's the gatekeepers on the retail side, which is part of why we've been building our subscription base more aggressively so that we have that ability to connect with them. For our demographic and what we do and the way we do it - service content for the readers we serve, it's strong. Our concern is the supply chain and things like that, not reader demand.

On being quoted as saying that Bauer was "looking for alternatives" to that supply chain: We are. That may be more of a medium term project, but we're definitely, on an ongoing basis, kind of pricing out whether there was a shock to the supply chain, because we need to know how to get our product to where the readers are buying it in a different way or very quickly. We make a choice at some point to make that change. It seems prudent to know how we would go about that and to, on an ongoing basis, understand the financial costs, as well the resource and logistical distraction type costs.

On the fact that publishers used to work together to get readers and now that's not so common: I don't want to overgeneralize, and I'm sure someone can point to a lot of counter examples, but I've generally found that on the reader revenue side there's a lot of collaboration. I mean, publishers who were supposed bitter rivals would always allow each other to mail each other's mailing lists for direct mail, for example. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of reciprocity. They wanted that ability and they figured if you mailed their people and they mailed your people, the right people are going to subscribe to the right magazine.

On retail space shrinking in the giant chains, yet Bauer has just published a magazine specifically for Walmart: There are trends and then there are individual products. An individual product that is going to connect with the readers is still going to succeed in an up market or a down market. The Whoa, Wait Walmart is designed for that Walmart shopper, the content is shoppable. We worked with Walmart; we followed their guidance and were able to put that Walmart label on the cover and it's actually one of the rare  magazines sold both in the frontend by the cash registers, but also in the mainline.

On why Walmart chose an ink on paper product for an idea that originated on Instagram: I don't know that they chose it. I think the Whoa, Wait Instagram account and blog, from two women who have really connected with their audience in a very unique way; I think Walmart was aware of the power of that. I think honestly, if we had come to them with a product that they thought didn't do what the shopper wanted, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere with them. They get offered a lot of things all the time, so I don't think they chose it as much as we made them a pitch based on our partners' understanding of the Walmart shopper and our understanding of the Walmart shopper. And Walmart believed that we hit it right.

 

On why no one has been able to replicate the success of Woman's World and First for Women: I don't know that anyone is trying to replicate the formula. Again, we build our business from a different revenue model than a lot of these other also great products. As you are, I'm a lover of magazines, so I don't look around and see a bunch of terrible products and then just two great ones. There are a ton of great products out there, ours happens to be oriented toward the retail buyer. It's meant to be purchased for a certain use and a certain environment.

On why Bauer's numbers are up, subscriptions are growing, ad revenues are up, while many other publishing companies can't say that: On the subscription side it's really investment; we believe in our connection with the reader. It hasn't really been as much of a focus in the past, when the retail supply chain was healthier, it wasn't as much of a need, but we wouldn't make those investments if they didn't return to us in the readers responding and subscribing and renewing, but that's purely from investment.

On whether it was the right decision to sell the celebrity titles and focus on women's magazines: It was definitely the right decision. The way that category was going, there needed to be an efficiency of one owner of that category. When we looked again, and as Mrs. Bauer said recently, in terms of decades, not in terms of years, as we looked over the real long-term, if we're going to make that kind of investment, it seemed like making it in the women's space was the best place to make it. So, we made the decision to sell, but we're looking to make acquisitions in the U.S., but probably not in that category. AMI is a very good operator and we respect them a lot, but it's a tough category. Those titles are down pretty significantly on the newsstand.

On Bauer's interest in acquisitions: It takes a lot of work to do that, but yes, that's where we have a big focus going forward into 2020. Again, as a long-term operator we think there are opportunities, whether that's print properties, like the celebrity portfolio that we think will fare better under AMI's ownership than maybe things that will fare better under our ownership, or whether it's more in the digital space. Again, with the focus on properties driven by consumer revenue, or at least consumer action, a consumer performance type of marketing.

On whether they ever ask themselves about publishing another women's weekly magazine: We do ask those kind of questions a lot. We look at First for Women, which does so well, and think could we raise the frequency of that? It's strange because First for Women is maybe the only 17 x per year product out there, but it actually seems to be the right frequency for it. We've looked at taking it more frequent and for a variety of reasons I think it's going to perform better at the frequency it is. So, no, I don't think we believe there's a way to slice and dice the market that way. We definitely have ideas, things that we'd love to do editorially, but I just don't know if that... it's just so tough to get that retail space now. The investment isn't just investing in the brand and in the staff, it's really investing in that real estate. It's not impossible, but I think a weekly would probably be unlikely.

On who devalued magazines at retail, the publishers or the retailers and distributors, who's to blame: For some products, their demand may have changed. Obviously, there has been an overall decline in retail sales for some. Maxim, where I used to work, we would sell a million of some issues and those days, selling a young men's product like that, are gone. So, I do think some of it was a readjustment to what types of products work in that medium. I don't think it was killed by retailers. Like a Maxim, for example, I don't think we would still be selling a million if not for the evil retailers. I believe that this rapidly changing society and economy, and what content in what medium people want, does change.