apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

With this vacant niche...when can we expect to see ApartmentTherapy in glossy print on newsstands?

Uggh. It is going to alienate quite a bit of the readership. Because why would I want to read all about planning weddings that I'm not going to have? Why do I want to keep wedding magazines around my place? Even if I just got it for the Blueprint pull-out, what will dates I bring home think?

Time to find something that fills the niche.

I missed this yesterday. What terrible news. Boo on Martha Stewart!

Is it also meant to follow that an interest in decor dies immediately after the wedding (rather the opposite, I would think, generally...)? I'm sure there are some, but I don't know many women who keep reading bridal magazines outside the year or so they spend actively planning their own weddings. Wedding magazines don't appeal to women in a certain (general) stage of life, they appeal to women in a certain (higly specific) stage of life.

The "similar stage of life" line sounds just like that - a line they're using to justify closing down a magazine that is more likely being shut down so that it doesn't compete directly with Martha Stewart Living. I only hope that Blueprint online isn't eventually hijacked as well.

though I will say that it's the misconception as regards young people interested in home decor.

This is horrible. So much for my subscription: which I just renewed. I have ZERO interest in weddings and a hefty jones for interior design. I hope Domino stays afloat: HG and Blueprint biting the dust in the same few months does not bode well.

i am not married nor interested in anything related to marrying. What an insane idea

Oops, I voted "no," but I meant "yes"--didn't read the question carefully enough.

I read wedding magazines for 6-12 months while I was planning my wedding, but doubt I will ever look at one again; they're really quite heinous. (Although MSW is the best of them, I must say.)

I agree with Erin K. that it's not really so much that Martha Stewart Inc. decided that only women getting married are the only ones interested in home decor, and more an after-the-fact explanation for a decision made purely for cost-cutting reasons.

disappointing but not surprising. ironic that the label is run by an unmarried woman.
well, I know there is no way I am buying some damn wedding magazine - so I'll have to wait for someone on this site to scan and post any interesting images.

I don't get it. These types of magazines are so geared towards women, but I'd say that probably 50% of the homes they feature or the contibutors are men (and my guess is they are not having a traditional wedding anytime soon). Aren't they the target audience??

What I think I don't get about it is that Mrs. Stewart her own self hasn't been married in quite a while, but she's moved her residence a time or two, so why wouldn't they expect other people to be more like that?

It seems to me that the popularity of Fine Hombuilding and Fine Woodworking magazines would be an indication that there is a substantial male population interested in home design.

I think that I cared more about home decor before I got married.

I may be getting married, but that's got nothing to do with my interest in design and I'm certainly not looking to Martha Stewart Weddings to help me with my wedding. I've been thinking about this since yesterday when the news broke, and this is just crappy thinking on the part of MSO. I actually saw a copy of Living on my way to work today and cursed her smiling face. Maybe they're folding because they don't understand their own readership enough to sell it to advertisers. Weddings is not the place for us Blueprint aficionados. Grrr....(with sadness)

i'm not married, not currently planning on it any time soon, but i love design.

if i were to buy a wedding mag just to get the home decor parts of it - i think i'd scare my boyfriend off real fast.

this is dumb.

Urggg....horrible news.

I am a Blueprint subscriber and have no interest in seeing it rolled into a Wedding how-to magazine...by her Marthaness, no less.

Very stupid move by Martha Omnimedia.

Hope they refund my money.

To expand on my quoted comment (gee, I'm a celebrity)-- not only am I not getting married anytime soon, I just got divorced. Coincidentally, my interest in design really piqued when I had my own space to design entirely on my own. So, Martha, if you send me Weddings instead, you'll be rubbing some fleur de sel in my wounds. Thanks for your attempt at making me feel like a failure-- it isn't appreciated.

Martha Stewart isn't married. Even her adult daughter isn't married. But I guess MSLO just sees people like them as potential customers for the MS Weddings mag. Picture me gagging here.

I can't help but wonder if websites like AT are part of the reason why magazines like Blueprint have not done well. Their target market may be quite happy getting all of their design info from the internet. Perhaps that's why the Blueprint blog did not receive the axe along with the magazine.

I really liked BLUEPRINT -- much more so than Martha Stewart Living; felt like there was actually something to read in BLUEPRINT that was accessible, that felt urban, and didn't require a staff of stylists (hair, food, decor etc.)..... All of those pages and pictures of vacant hallways in Martha Stewart Living, with the front door open and the sun gleaming through the open (burglarized?) door onto the polished banisters and floors always seems so sterile, and kinda, creepy.....

Most wedding registries are filled with beige department store garbage, so maybe this move will at least have the benefit of letting me buy more interesting gifts for all the weddings I go to!

What a stupid sexist and homophobic idea. What would the institution of marriage have anything to do with design? Grrr.

I liked Blueprint and used to buy it on the newsstand (I know, I know...). But I'm already married, so what do I want with a magazine about catering for the Big Day?

oh barnard gal. you've really let me down. i've been holding on to the re-subscribe notice for blueprint for about a week. glad I didn't send out a check or i'll be getting wedding magazines! (not against weddings-- v. against wedding magazines!)

Liza from VT said it, stupid sexist and homophobic is right. I never subscribe to magazines but often pick BP up on the newstand. It will be a lovely day for snowboarding in hell before I ever pick up a wedding mag. Ugh.

I never liked Blueprint, at all.

Seriously, if you buy the wedding mag for the blueprint pull out only...why not just pull it out and toss the rest of the mag?

It doesn't seem accurate to compare Martha to the Blueprint demographic. She's a middle-aged woman and very well established. The magazine is directed at people just establishing their serious adult households. Quite a distance in lifestages.

That's so stupid! Personally, I fear my decorating ideas will be thrown to wayside once I get married. Something tells me my future husband won't want a pink living room with Flokati rug. Now is the time to design, not everyone is getting married tomorrow.

my friend got a free subscription when she bought a $12 copy of martha wedding. Made it through my wedding with only 1 wedding mag this summer. Still making it through my new apt with at least 7 copies of domino, 4 Dwells, 2 H&G (RIP) and a couple of blueprints. Oh, and daily visits to AT.

Maybe I'll just pull it out of MSW while it's sitting right there on the news stand.

No sorry, that's bad, very bad. ;)

Martha would not approve.

HandG, then InStyle Home and now Blueprint....its very sad to see these mags gone...but I wonder what new mag will pop up?

and even if you do want to get married, you may not necessarily want to read a magazine about marriage and weddings. Not everyone wants a fancy affair.

Calm down people...You really have no idea how it's going to be rolled into Weddings. Wait for them to develop the ideas before you jump to conclusions. Geez

I see something else rather troubling about this decision: MSLO clearly saw Blueprint as a junior publication for a younger market.

Maybe the whole problem (besides the name) is that it is misreading the home magazine market. I have just about every issue of MSL ever published (I am missing maybe 5), but even I am maxed-out. I can't think the last time I did more than flip through the pages -- probably in 2001. It just isn't relevant to me -- I don't see myself relfected in its pages.

Looking at the comments, I am guessing that Blueprint's appeal went far beyond twentysomethings... Personally, I think it had more potential appeal than MSL -- the projects seemed less fussy, more practical, more do-able, and less extravagent.

What I found really annoying about Blueprint was the rather patronising attitude -- i.e., the stuff on manners, books, etc. I don't need someone to talk down at me like I am still a teenager, reminding me to say "please" and "thank you" (I was actually offended by that section), and the books & film section was quite lame (I have other, better sources for this sort of info, and don't want it from my design mag).

MSLO didn't realize that Blueprint had far more appeal, to a wider, somewhat older, demographic. To just offer up MSL to this audience is short-sighted and misguided.

I don't really think it is too big of a loss. There are many magazines out there that do design far better and with out the MS condescension.

Although I do see rolling ti into the wedding publication as a very disquieting trend. FAR too much money is already spent on tacky wedding fashion as exemplified by the existing wedding publication already and this will only encourage even more extravagantly unnecessary wedding.

Save the money spent of 'decorating' your wedding for the catering (the weak point at most weddings), or your home. A wedding only lasts a couple of hours and the participants are usually too involved to notice there surroundings anyway!

Fine Homebuilding and Fine Woodworking as the "male decor" alternative?

Um, I only pick them up to ogle the carpenters.

I don't mind a magazine SKEWING toward women, as long as the estrogen level remains fairly low. Domino, are you listening? ENOUGH with the Laboutins as styling props or "hostess gift" suggestions.

Monika--
You are lucky to not need etiquette reminders, or to not know people who need them. But I also never got the impression that Blueprint was a "design mag" although it hit areas of design.

Oh, but I do want "a fancy affair."

Marriage, wedding ... meh.

Ok, now that the question has been reworded and spun 18O degrees to compensate for all the answers from the people who didn't read the original question carefully, my answer--YES, the assumption that only newly married women are interested in home decor is WRONG--is the opposite of what I meant to vote.

They should have just tried this tactic in Florida in 2000 and avoided all that legal nonsense. Yeah, it's illegal to change peoples' votes in an election but who says you can't change the ballot after the fact?

Being from Tallahassee, FL , I love your comment Magnaverde!

Who is this Martha? You know in Europe we don't have anyone like her telling us what to want.

I recently renewed my subscription, too. What a rip-off. I have less than zero interest in weddings, but Blueprint was one of my favorite shelter mags. I certainly won't be renewing my subscription next time.

On a purely logical level, this makes no sense. No matter what "life stage" you're talking about, the subset of those people getting married will always be smaller than the total group.

What I found really annoying about Blueprint was the rather patronising attitude -- i.e., the stuff on manners, books, etc. I don't need someone to talk down at me like I am still a teenager

This was very strongly my impression of Blueprint and why I can see the rationale of the MS decision to treat it as a "starting you out on civilized life" guide comparable to wedding magazines. It never truly struck me as being all that interested in home design once the reader had decorated his/her first "grown-up" apartment (which was usually posed with a very young hetero couple).

Given the very different interpretation that's so widespread here -- and that people marry later than those happy young couples in Blueprint anyway -- it'd be interesting to see what market research MS's team actually did.

I already voiced my disgust with wedding magazines (and ridiculously indulgent weddings themselves) but I've been thinking more about the "stage of life" the magazine seemed to shoot for ... wasn't it more for the time BEFORE you got married? Like your first post-dorm apartment or something?

Regardless, I'm on like my 8th or 9th post-dorm home and I still liked it.

Incidentally this is another MS move that makes me like her less and less these days ... this and the fact that she changed her longtime signature color from jadeite to her new Tiffany blue knockoff.

"By publishing Blueprint in a special interest format, we can provide newlyweds with useful ideas and inspiration for their homes; and ADVERTISERS with a targeted platform to reach this highly desirable consumer.
The moves enables us to redirect a portion of our investment dollars into other high-potential DIGITAL media initiatives, further develop our Martha Stewart Weddings franchise and CREATE EFFICIENCIES in our Publishing business. There will be a REDUCTION in staff associated with not publishing Blueprint as a full-frequency magazine, but we expect to re-assign a core team of employees to existing businesses and new projects at MSLO."
You all can go on forever on how you think the magazine should've been this or that, but you're really missing how it works. Magazines see a market, and attempt to fill that market. Just like any other product. Martha Stewart saw a need for something with a refined design, for twenty-somethings. They didn't want it to be more dowdy like Martha, they wanted it to be cheeky and to show that they weren't your mother. It attempted to fill twenty-somethings desire for more modern projects, design and lifestyle articles.
Keeping that in mind, ADVERTISERS want a more targeted, measured way to reach their audience. Exactly what they said above. Regardless of what you think the magazine should be or was, the ultimate goal of the magazine is to create a product that works for advertisers. It should amuse people, interest them, inspire, but it doesn't survive if ADVERTISERS don't invest their dollars in it. Their money is precious to them and they want to know it's going towards the audience that's most likely to notice their products. Basically, they probably don't feel like they are reaching the audience they want, they don't think they want men (just like in the newspaper business, newspaper advertisers dont' want men, men don't control the money and the purse strings) and they don't think they want the more sensible thirty-something lady with cats. If you think about it, it probably does make lots of sense. I'm a newlywed and when I think about how much everyone spent on gifts alone for us, it's just crazy. There is a huge amount of money potentially for advertisers in going after those getting married.
The other component is the DIGITAL media part. I'm sure they realize that they have to continue to grow their online brand and to do it, you need to take a hard look at your resources, and allocate towards that. It's really simple I think.

"Really? Why is it that the shelter/home decor MAGAZINE business continues to be skewed in this way?"

Basically because advertisers get what they want. They pay for it. AND, for all those guys and single women, MSLO may want you, but if they can't convince advertisers that they are getting you and you're buying, then it's a wash.

"Given the very different interpretation that's so widespread here -- and that people marry later than those happy young couples in Blueprint anyway -- it'd be interesting to see what market research MS's team actually did."

The interesting thing is that people think of magazines as appealing to them FIRST. Like they should go around making magazines based on what single design-oriented people want. I'd be interested in how much thirty-something singles who live in larger population cities spend on decorating a year. I bet that it's easier and more profitable to create a quarterly publication that markets toward twenty-somethings with more expendable income, who also happen to have a million people buying them presents for their wedding and who are creating very long wish lists. They started out as bimonthly, and I think for good reason. They wanted to test the market, and see how it did. It had a good response, they went monthly, and then they probably decided it was a better business decision to focus on the digital side, like I said above.
You really have to figure out who you want your audience to be first, based on advertising and the market, and then create the publication based around that audience and that goal. They go hand in hand, and one can't exist without the other.
I'll stop ranting about the market and how it figures in now, but I liked this quote from Charlie Rutman, chief executive for the North American operations of MPG, a media agency owned by Havas. “In today’s hyperspeed ‘give me what I want when I want it’ world, the idea of waiting 30 days to get my information is out of sync.”
I still like my printed magazines, but the world is changing fast and MSLO sees that and is focusing their resources toward the future.
MM