Why did Gourmet go under? The newspapers and blogosphere are spinning with analysis. Christopher Kimball of Cook's Illustrated says it's the internet's fault, where we are now "ruled by a million instant pundits" and experts are no longer secure in their "coronated" positions.
Kimball's op-ed also has an odd twist, since Condé Nast purchased and immediately shut down his magazine back in 1990. Since then Kimball has of course repurchased and secured his throne, but it's a strange twist.
Read on for that plus more Gourmet mourning, Nestle going head-to-head with mommy bloggers, and a study that finds chicken more fatty (these days) than red meat.
• Gourmet To All That - Christopher Kimball's op-ed at The New York Times.
• The death of food porn? at The Sydney Morning Herald.
• More Than Just A Magazine, 'Gourmet' Says Goodbye - At NPR.
• Chicken now has more fat than red meat - At The Sun.
• Mummy bloggers spit the dummy over Nestle's spoilt milk - At The Age.
Previous Morning News: Gourmet Magazine Closing
(Image: Ivory Simms)
How To Make Cake Pops
How To Cook a Steak: 15 Recipes for a Weeknight Valentine's Meal
Like us on Facebook
Our reading list
RSS Feed (Atom)
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Valentine's Ice Cre...
Before & After: Trashed Hutch Turned Vanity Dresser 
A Contemporary Space in the Queen City 
Comments (5)
The ad revenue from the luxury items hadn't been coming in for some time. If luxury items are on the decline or people aren't upgrading as often as they had been previously, the manufacturers of these items must spend their ad money more frugally. Also, the demographic of Gourmet's viewers don't go online as often as say, Maxim's, so their online tie ins aren't as clickable.
I think they're throwing away a gem. Why isn't a hedge fund buying this asset?
It totally sucks but as I understand it, its all about ad revenue and for a magazine where people tend to laugh at Kraft and Jello and other major brands it makes advertising hard. I really don't think it has anything to do with the net or anyone's opinion. Every other food magazine has a two page spread with jello pies and another from hershey's with kiss cookies but that just wouldn't work with gourmet---an ad-free approach like CI might be perfect.
I loved the Gourmet Web site and columnists such as John T. Edge, Francis Lam and Hodding Carter, but I let my subscription lapse long ago. It was great food porn, but expensive and less than practical. Honestly, how many people do you know who regularly prepare recipes from Gourmet, and if you say lots, you're lying. All good things come to an end, and if it makes the folks at Conde Nast feel better to say it was the Internet's fault, so be it. We know better. Ad revenue? Arrogance and pomposity? Who knows.
Um, I did use recipes from Gourmet regularly. Not all their stuff is pretentious. There's a yummy and very humble pasta with lentil dish that I got from them. I love it. But it's true, in this day in age where fewer people cook and more are dependent on packaged foods, I can't see Jello ads making it into Gourmet. No ads, no magazine. The internet might have something to do with it too. Most of their recipes are up on Epicurious and various blogs. Why buy a magazine when the recipes are for free?
The people at conde nast didn't say it was the internet's fault. They simply said, Gourmet doesn't have as much ad revenue as BA since some of the more 'luxury' brands choose to spend their money in BA which has more readers. A significant portion of Gourmet's target market is the same as BA. The internet presence of Gourmet is the same as BA (through epicurious) so I feel that can't really be the problem because they would both have the same issue about online presence.