The more you give, The more you get.

Paid Maybelline advertisement as seen in CLEO June 2010.

In the early 70’s, political economist Dallas Smythe stated (in reference to broadcast communication i.e. Television) that the audience is a commodity sold to advertisers. In other words media in any form that receives audience attention is more likely to experience financial advertising support. To some extent Smythe’s ideology can be applied today with reference to commercial magazines, but to a lesser extent to, out of the ordinary titles such as Frankie, primarily because such titles are experiencing rapid growth without wads of advertiser funding that usually fuels the financial continuity of a publication. Operating on what Frankie Editor Jo Walker refers to as a “happy shoestring,” joking that “…people are sometimes paid in hugs and six-packs”, the question remains; Now that Frankie has grown, gaining Industry watchers and Media Buyers attention see Sex Sex Sex VS Nana Nana Nana or The 7:30 Report story, Frankie Magazine beats the odds, will content be effected? Will advertising pages increase? Will PR companies send more products with the hope of gaining more coverage for their clients? And will Frankie’s anti-marketing technique be persuaded in the direction of commercial titles?


In Cleo’s June Issue there is 72 full page advertisements making up around 33% of the publications page count, however further PR generated advertising is found in the fashion and beauty ‘editorial’ pages and therefore the advertising to editorial ratio gap is further narrowed. 20 full-page adverts embroiled within Frankie’s 120 pages equate advertising to editorial ratio of about 16% to 84%, where beauty and fashion product placement is also scarce. In Issue 35 however, which is the publication’s latest release, an article nestled on page 82 and 83, is dedicated solely to red lipstick. Beauty articles in Issues 30 and 27, which were published before the release of the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures that exemplify Frankie’s rapid growth did not contain any beauty editorial pages, let alone one that spans two pages.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

While Frankie contributor Rowena Grant-Frost critiques each of the lip sticks in a typical Frankie fashion via a rating system with categories such as ‘The coffee cup test’, ‘Kiss on, Kiss off’ and ‘End of the Day’, the inclusion of the article and its inhabitance of a whole two pages on precious, bi-monthly, matte paper stock space is shocking especially following Editor Jo Walker’s comments published online here, “We don’t do diets, beauty or orgasms because that’s already well and truly covered and also because we think there’s more interesting things to talk about.” So what’s with the big turn around? Perhaps PR pressure? A Publishing house actually interested in making some money? Probably both.

Page 1 of Frankie's first beauty article//Image courtesy of Frankie Magazine - Issue 35 pg 82.

As the beauty intern at a popular (commercial) magazine as well as, as a PR intern at a boutique agency that handles many beauty and lifestyle clients I really do experience the pressure put on magazines by PR agencies who submit ‘free of charge’ products to them, in the hope of gaining some editorial coverage for their clients. On the other hand I also experience the pressure put on PR personnel from clients to get their products out there. Without revealing too much, as one day I would like to work in the industry, I would be lying if I said, good PR and advertising dollars didn’t influence the editorial decisions of magazine journalists. But you knew that already, didn’t you?

Typical PR fueled beauty article//Image courtesy of FAMOUS magazine.

Sex Sex Sex Vs Nana Nana Nana.

VS



Covers courtesy of ACP (CLEO) and Morrison Media (Frankie)



When comparing covers of the last 3 issues of CLEO magazine with Issues 27, 30 and 35 of Indie masthead Frankie, it is hard to believe they are from the same time. Rachel Bilson, Blake Lively and Aussie Glamour turned Hollywood starlet Isabelle Lucas stare back at me from the CLEO covers, heavily airbrushed and surrounded by fluro text. And yes, every cover features the word ‘sex’ at least once. The idea that sex sells isn’t exactly a new one and with the Frankie covers which feature alternative looking young models, dressed a little 'nanaish' and the magazine’s rapid growth in sales and circulation as an example, it may well be an outdated one as well.

According to the December 2009 Australian Bureau of Circulations’ figures as reported by Rachel Wells for The Age, the bi-monthly title grew a record 31.6% elevating it’s readership to 38,343. Still a long way behind Industry leaders Cosmopolitan 152,028 and Cleo 128,183 it is making significant ground on other specialty fashion magazines such as Vogue 54,000 and Harpers Bazzar 55,130. David Dale an online contributor at The Sun Herald believes “At its current rate of growth, Frankie will outsell Women’s Weekly (Australia’s number one selling monthly) by the year 2020.”

So with all of Frankie’s current success, lets not forget other indie titles, Russh, Yen and Oyster who also experienced growth in the recent Circulations release, just what is the secret behind the success of these titles? Have Editor, Jo Walker and her team of contributors at Frankie as well as media staffers at other up and coming alternative titles, well and truly nailed a formula straying from the typical sex, diet and celebrity approach, at a time where people are craving something just a little bit different? And if so, does the power within the print media realm or any media realm for that matter, lay solely with the consumer? Uses and Gratifications (U&G), anyone?

U&G dates back to the 1940s and is an audience research framework, that suggests audience members actively choose which media they consume in alignment with their needs, which leads to satisfaction and gratification. Dah? The acceptance and warm-hearted embrace that Frankie and her Indie sisters are receiving is simply a reflection of the changing wants and needs in Australian society that they are so flawlessly meeting. Editor Jo Walker puts the increasing interest in Frankie down to an unpredictable economic climate and new found love of raw, DIY and anything vintage. “I think last year, with the GFC, people started looking for things that were a bit more genuine and real” she told Rachel Wells at The Age. In the The 7:30 Report story, Frankie Magazine beats the odds reported by Mary Gearin Jo Walker further explains, “There is some kind of quest for something that feels a little bit more genuine, a little bit more real, something that is a little bit less rushed and a little less mass produced and I really think Frankie speaks to that kind of desire.” She also thinks readers are enjoying the ‘no bull’ approach telling Maistar Channel, “I’m not talking up to the readers, I’m not talking down to the readers, I am just on the same level as the readers.”

Frankie Magazine has laid the foundations for a very successful journey, but with such success comes responsibility. Just food for thought, but what can we expect when Media Buyers and advertisers, realize the Indie Title’s unusual appeal and start offering financial incentives and more interest in advertising pages? It is clear that reader wants and needs clearly contribute to the success of specific titles not to mention the content, but just how will readers respond when advertisers and other consumers take interest and lead underground magazines into the mainstream and commercial media realm? According to Erica Bartle, author of daily blog Girl With a Satchel when she suggested that Frankie might one day enjoy similar success to Vogue, “a few people got a bit cranky and were like, ‘We don’t want everyone to know about Frankie. It’s our little secret.” Which poses the question, in relation to Uses and Gratification, are Indie Magazine readers only gratified because they feel they are a minority and even if increased advertising doesn’t effect magazine content will they reject the magazine anyway, just for becoming popular?

What are your thoughts?