The Demise of Golf for Women Magazine

August 2, 2008

On its own, Golf for Women is a great publication and it covers the world of women’s golf better than anyone else. It is actually shocking that there hasn’t been an immediate backlash in the golf world, especially from women, that their magazine is being killed off.

How then does a publication that is the largest player in its niche and has 600,000 subscribers, end up on the magazine scrapheap? Was it bad management? Poor editorial? The economy?

I’m sure it might have been some of those factors, but on its surface it seems like a boneheaded move. I understand the economics of magazine publishing; ad sales support the editorial. That’s been a reality since magazines were invented. Conde’ Nast owns some major titles like Vogue, GQ, Architectural Digest, Gourmet, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and the list goes on and on. They also own the two largest golf publications Golf Magazine and Golf Digest.

What I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t sell off a title that had 600,000 readers? So it doesn’t fit into their strategic plan, but wouldn’t it fit into someone else’s? There must be value in a publication that’s been around for 20 years.

Conde’ Nast is getting the brunt of the bad press on this, but it is really the S.I. Newhouse family that has controlling interest in the holding company Advance Publications that ultimately owns Golf for Women. Clearly they’d rather kill off the magazine than have someone else try to run it.

Let’s look at the economics. According to the Magazine Publishers of America, Golf for Women’s sales in the 1st Quarter of 2008 were down 26.4% and the ad page count was down 34.9%. Not very pretty. Golf World, a similar publication is down 9.3%. Golf Digest is up 4.6% and Golf Magazine is up 0.3%.

Across the board, magazines are down a modest 0.4% and ad page count is down 6.3%. Some publications with sales drops of more than 20% are Yachting, US News and World Report, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, Reader’s Digest, Newsweek, Cycle World, Coastal Living, Autoweek and the ABA Journal . So it isn’t exclusively a Golf for Women problem. Then why sacrifice it?

For a couple of reasons. Conde’ Nast didn’t have an effective online strategy and doesn’t know how to leverage it’s titles on the Web. A recent New York Times article said as much.

“Analysts and competing publishers say that Condé Nast under-uses extremely well-known brands that could draw more Web traffic. Some executives have argued that the company should invest more online and move faster. One of those was Mitchell B. Fox, a former senior executive at Condé whose concerns about the company’s Internet strategy contributed to his departure earlier this year.”

Another reason it folded is that the publishers didn’t understand the female golfer. They know the fashion-conscious female, but not the female golfer. Complaints about the magazine were that it was too focused on fashion and spas and not enough on basic golf (tips, technique and training). In spite of having a female editor, it seemed that it was really being run by men. It was treated like a sport-specific Vogue, or a Golf Digest with more photos of women, than a unique standalone title.

Third, Golf for Women was a drop in Conde’ Nast’s golf ad sales. Combined, Golf Digest and Golf Magazine pull in $74 million in ad revenue; Golf for Women a mere $2.7 million. It was continually propped up by it’s bigger brothers in a similar fashion as the NBA supports it’s little sister WNBA.

Ultimately, Conde’ Nast used the economic downturn as an excuse to throw in the towel. The publication has always struggled, but Golf for Women is a different magazine than it’s larger siblings. It’s readers don’t want to be constantly bombarded by ads and articles about sinking more putts, driving it farther and a fixation on the latest PGA stars. Also, running ads that might be appropriate in Golf Digest, are not going to interest the female golfer.

According to the National Golf Foundation, female golfers are one of the few growing segment of the golf population and represent approximately 24% of golfers. That’s more than 6 MILLION golfers out there that aren’t being adequately served by the current crop of golf magazines.

Conde’ Nast’s closure of Golf for Women is a loss to golf, and female golfers. Clearly a monotonous stream of articles on equipment, playing techniques and fashion isn’t what the female golfers wants to read about. Golf for Women’s demise leaves a big hole in the market that should be filled by another company that better understands the female golfer.

Is there a savvy publishing company out there willing to take a chance on women’s golf again?

Bookmark This Post: