ENTERTAINNENT WEEKLY PRESENTATION
July 25, 1988
Jeff Jarvis
PART I: THE GENESIS
(INTRO] Four and a half years ago, in January 1984, I saw « need
for an entertainment magazine. I took the idea to ny ME at the
time, Pat Ryan, and with her enthusiastic support, I sent a
proposal upstairs. We didn't start the magazine then. And it’s
just as well. For since then, both the need and the opportunity
for an entertainment magazine have grown. Now, I believe, is the
perfect time for Entertsinment Weekly.
(THE NEED] The need for the magazine is clear: Entertainment is
confusing. Show business has grown end spread and today we have
too many choices and too little tine.
- Half of us ‘have cable.
~ 85 percent of us have VCRs according to a new Gallup poll.
~ The number of independent TV stations hes doubled this decade
Also this decade, the number of Americans receiving nine or more
TV channels has more than doubled to 80 percent of the country
~ The music business is back alive
> Adults are going to the novies again.
= And there is more growth ahead thanks to recent rulings on
syndicated TV that will force cable networks to cone up with more
fresh and exclusive programming and thanks to the possibility
that the FCC may allow telephone companies to compete for cable
distribution, increasing cable ponetration past 50 percent and
allowing for growth in cable networks.
With all this wonderful diversity, ve need something that helps
us dig through the mountain to find the gems, something that
warns us not to miss hidden treats or not to waste our time on
over-hyped trash. The decision of what to watch, what to buy,
what to read is ours as consumers ~~ and always will be.
Entertainment Weekly doesn’t tell us what to decide. It helps us
decide.
Entertainment Weekly also keeps us hip, Even if I don’t buy a lot
of records in a year -~ and I don’t -- I still want to know
what's now, what’s hip, what's hot, what’s not. Entertainment
Weekly will tell me and millions of baby boomers like me. It will
help keep me young. It will keep up painlessly hip. We necd that.
{THE OPPORTUNITY] The opportunity for this magazine is also
becoming clear: There is no one publication that covers all of
entertainment. If. you get TV Guide, Preniere, your Sunday
newspaper, Rolling Stone, one of the new video magazines, a hi-fi
magazine and People, you will have @ lot -- way too much, in Factbut you still won’t have everything that our magazine has, all
in one place. You will still be confused. That is the problem
with entertainment coverage these days. And there is our
opportunity. .
(THE PEOPLE HAGAZINE DISCLAIMER] Parenthetically, we also find
opportunity inside the company in the territory that People
magazine is leaving behind. Used to be, when three networks nade
up the TV world as ve knew it, Dallas would be a hit; People
would put Victoria Principal on the cover; and the issue would
sell over rate base. Life was simple. No more. Now the growth of
entertainment has spread the audience thin -- so thin, in fact,
that I argue we are witnessing the death of the nass audience. No
one show or movie or record grabs so much attention as Dallas
used to; thus no newstand cover can simply take advantage of that
attention as People used to. As Jin Gaines proves every week,
People is becoming nore and more a news magazine and less a ahow
business magazine. This shift opens up room for a subscription-
based show business weekly. Gaines does not see Entertainment
Weekly as a competitor because ours is a service magazine --
concentrating on the products, not the personalities.
(WEEKLY DISCLAIMER] Before telling you how we will do that, first
let‘s deal with how often we'll do it: weekly. We want to allay
any doubts about whether this is weekly magazine. This magazine
must be fresh each week -- in fact, each weekend ~- when
consumers debate whether to go to the movies and what to see;
when they head té the mall to buy records, CDs, videotapes and
books; when they scratch their heads over their three choices of
movies on network TV on Sunday night alone. That is why we would
like to see Entertainment Weekly distributed so that it arrives
in hones and on newsstands before Friday, in tine for weekend
entertainment planning. Perhaps the industry does think in months
=- Novenber sweeps or December movies -- but the consuners think
in weeks. The need for this magazine is weekly. The demand is
weekly. And so is the content. I can’t prove that to you with raw
numbers. To tell you that American publishers release 55,000
titles a year is to tell you nothing. What counts is thet there
are nore than enough books -- too many books ~~ to review each
week. Just look at the Sunday New York Times for proof -- and
they don’t even bother covering most of the books that Americans
really read. At People, where reviews are a small but -- I hope
~ important part of the magazine, we have gained some experience
in this area. We find that there are at least 10 or 20 books each
week well worth major attention. At Entertainment Weekly, we plan
to highlight about half-dozen. And books, as important as they
may be, are not the major part of this magazine. In all areas we
will have way too much entertainment competing for coverage every
week -~ and that’s just what we want. Take TV: Americans watch
seven hours, ten minutes day on the average. They can watch ~~
and We can review -- up to seven new made-for-TV movies from the
networks alone each week. The networks also premiere at least 50brend new series each year. But of course, networks are not the
only game now. As the number of independent stations doubled this
decade, so did syndication. There are now 300 syndication
companies offering 4,000 series and specials -- more end more of
them are and will be brand new, like Star Trek or Friday the 13th
or, of course, Wheel of Fortune. And there is cable with 15 to 20
legitimate networks offering ever nore fresh programming. There
is, no one would argue, plenty to review and cover in TV. Ditto
for movies, which Americans paid to see one billion times last
year. Hore than 500 films were released last year, a doubling
this decade. Some of them are worthless, of course. But in ovr
experience, there are at least three or four movies a week that
deserve major attention. In one week in August, I count sbout
eight. In one week in duller October, I count 11. Again, from
experience, there'll be more than enough. Record companies may
release more than a hundred titles a week, but we find about 10 &
week worthy of attention, Same with videotapes. Finally
Americans spend $40 billion dollars a year on electronic gadgets
so we certainly will never run out of service stories that help
our readers decide how to spend that money wisely.
[CONTENT] Now u brief look at content. Entertainment Weekly will
cover seven major areas:
1. Television, including cable and syndication.
2. Novies.
3. Video
4. Husie
5. Books and publishing, including magazines. We'll call this
section “print.
6. Gadgets -- that is, hints on how to buy or hook up the latest
in VCRs, TVs, CD players, and so on.
and 7. Other entertainment, a section we oall "time out," which
is our umbrella for occasional stories (and yes, ads) on travel
sports, hobbies and so on.
I‘ll walk you through the magazine and show you the covers and
spreads that four of us put together in three weeks last April
to be used in our direct-response packages.
First, of course, the cover. Hike will give you the numbers on
sub versus newsstand, but as we've already made clear, this is to
be primarily @ subscription magazine. But that does not mean that
the covers can be drab and predictable, far from it. I want the
cover to look fresh, daring, different and provocative. This is a
new generation of Tine Inc. magazines -- a new generation of
magazines, period. And it will look new
This magazine has an attitude and that starts on the cover. [SHOW
HOONLIGHTING COVER] When we have something to say about,
entertainment we say it loud and clear. But as you can see here
we start with affection. We are fans, albeit intelligent fans
When we attack Noonlighting, it’s because we don’t see enough ofit. We like it that much. We’ll even start reviews on the cover,
trumpeting s show we love, giving it the attention it deserves
[SHOW HONDER YEARS COVER) We will provide round-ups and guides ~~
to the Oscars [SHOW OSCAR COVER] and to the new season on TV
(SHOW FALL TV COVER]. In general, Entertainment Weekly covers
what you ean see or hear tonight in your home or in your
hometown. But to stay on top of all entertainment, to stay hip,
we will offer occasional roundups of high-culture like theater
inside the magazine and of mass culture -- like rock tours -~ on
the cover. [SHOW SPRINGSTEEN COVER] And, of course, we'll have
covers pegged to major events -- whether with a review, un
interview or a locationer. [SHOW CROCODILE DUNDEE COVER]
Now inside
We'll have two-part table of contents. The first part, of
course, tells you what’s in the magazine. The second part is a
calendar for the week, telling you the highlights of what’s on
and what's coning out in every area of entertainment -- with
cross-references to stories or reviews where we have them.
Next, we'll-handle letters a little differently -- perhaps
putting them later in the book. Stealing an idea fron Spy
magazine, I want to summarize our mailbag, spot trends, connent
on letters, and add as much fire end spice as we can. When
Possible, we will let our readers gang up on one of our crities
For our philosophy, our number one rule of life, is that
everybody's a critic ~~ our readers as much as our columnists
Talking about -~ arguing about
in itself, as Ebert and Siskel
\d as we will try to prove in
rities at war,” in which one
or 8 producer or star can yell
Instead of an editor’s note, I
“critic on the loose.” In that
-- entertainment is entertaining
and all their clones prove on TV
print with a feature called
critic can argue with another one
at a critic. No opinion is sacred.
would like to see something called
brief column I want to expand the
definition of criticisn to take on any subject as a house
iconoclast
We start the real criticism with TV, since it is by far th
biggest (but most ignored) segnent of show biz. We will ha
in all the sections, @ resident lead columnist who will review
the week’s four or five most notable shows in brief and punchy
but thoughtful and intelligent reviews. In boxes scattered here
and there, we also will report ratings and news items -- series
cancelled, stars added and so on. We will have capsule reviews
running through the section to handle notable episodes of series,
reruns, movies on TV and so on.
{SHOW HOVIE REVIEW SPREAD] Next come the movies with their
resident lead columnist reviewing three, four, five or six movies
in a week. Here we also will have speciality columnists whorotate -~ someone to handle horror movies and drive-in flicks,
for instance. We will have news items in boxes. We will have
capsule reviews of movies that are still in theaters and box
office numbers for then as well -- all of this is ained at
helping you decide what to see tonight. We will have 4 critics”
consensus chart looking at what other reviewers across the
country say -- fron the New York Times to the Witchita Beacon-
Eagle. And we will edd the country’s consensus based on exit
polls st theaters
The critical sections for video, music and print will be much the
same with lead critics, specialty critics (jazz and country
western in music, for instance), news items, capsule reviews,
best-seller lists, end so on.
{SHOW BETTE & LILY SPREAD] In the middie of the bock, inbetween
these review sections, cones the feature section with
locationers, trend stories, unnual round-ups of concert tours and
the like. These stories should ~- like our reviews -- display an
attitude. [SHOW TALK SHOW SPREAD] We should never be afraid to be
talked about. Also included in the center of the book will be
those none-of-the-above "time out” stories on travel and such
Here we'll do our gadget stories. [SHOW GADGET SPREAD] These will
be simple and to-the-point how-to stories: How to buy a
camcorder; whether you shovid get your VCR repaired or whether
you should just buy a new one; how to hook up your VCR te your
Stereo, and so on
Hhile we were working on our first spreads, my colleague Peter
Travers came up with a good idea: covering every area of the
magazine -- TV, music, video, print, movies ~~ for kids in one or
two spreads. Well do that every week. [SHOK KIDS SPREAD]
We'll have a gossip column called “show buzz" and some mor!
standing and rotating features. There is much more to the
magazine. But that’s the heart of it.
[RULES] So there is = very quick tour. In sum: Entertainment
Weekly is roughly one third reviews, one third nes, one third
features. It is 100 percent aimed at helping you decide what to
watch, listen to, read or talk about tonight. And that is our
second rule of life. (You'll remember the first: Everybody's a
critic.) Here are sone of our other rules to publish by:
~ This will be the world’s most browsable magazine. With it:
short and punchy reviews, its boxes and charty and news iter
should be easy to read front to back, middle to front, any way
you please
it
- It will serve Terre Haute ss well as it serves Menhattan- We must be opinioned
talked about.
even on the cover -~ and we must be
~ The magazine will not speak with one voice but with the many
distinctive voices of its critics, its reporters, its ‘readers and
even its onenies.
- The magazine must be-as entertaining as entertainment itself
- It must be as newsy as any newspaper’s feature section.
> It will be selective, reviewing and writing about the bis, the
best, the bombs, only that which is notable. We are not the TV
Guide of #11 entertainment.
= And it will be = voice for quality in an industry thet
desperately needs one.
That, briefly, is the editorial vision for the magazine. Now the
business vision...
PART II: What we've done -- already shown
PART IIT: What we're planning to do
The first task required to start this magazine: a talent search
We have to lure away -- and create -- the best crities we can
find. For Entertainment Weekly will be as weak as its weakest
voice.
Which leads me to the bad news: Editorially, I do not see how ve
can manage a gradual, phased-in launch. It doesn’t matter how
many copies we print -- one or a million -- if a single issue of
this magazine is embarrasing, then the damage is equally severe
This magazine is not a formula to fill in. It is a forum for
voices. And first we must find those voices. And to do so, to
hire the best, we must meke a connittment. You can’t hire’a Tom
Shales or a Roger Ebert on a two-week tryout.
But now the good news. As I caid in our original prospectus:
Critics are cacti. They require little care or watering. Thus we
believe that by its nature, Entertainment Weekly should be
inexpensive to produce. First because it is filled with writing
by people who should need little editing. Second because it will
have the most predictable and thus managable content of any
magazine in the conpany. And third because we are bound and
determined to make it inexpensive. Entertainment Weekly should be
the beginnning of a new generation of Tine Ine. magazines not
only in what is produced but alse in how that is produced.™
I don’t care where the magazine is started. I want to act as if
wero starting it 3,000 miles away. Which ie not intended as an
insult to the Time Inc. Way. I only mean that we should not
become dependent upon, addicted to and in debt because we are
using services we cannot afford or do not need. I would like to
see this run es an independent company with its own neaningful
Pal, its own meaningful bottom line. So I would not use the
library because it clips The New York Times when I need Variety
and the Star, which I can get from independent services and now
from plenty of electronic data bases. I can get better
information -~ for the purposes of this specialized magazine --
cheaper elsewhere. That’s just one example. In general, I don’t
Want to see us waste the chance to do some true zero-based
budgeting, to start from scratch and build only where we need to.
That’s one way we'll keep it cheap
Another way is in production. Some of you know that I am an
erstuhile amateur nerd; I love technology. But I will not buy
machines for the sake of buying machines. I will start with the
presumption that the old-fashioned way is way to go until I can
see technology reliably saving me time and money. For example: I
suspect we will stert producing our pages by stripping -- by
hiring some of the surplus of freelance artists around and giving
eech an exacto knife, not a computer mouse. Writers will work on
PCs, of course, but designers may not at the start. Where it is
Possible to vse computers to design and produce pages, we will
get then. But we won't wait for them. We can start the magazine
firet and add the technology later. I certainly hope to do that.
I would love to build a network of PCs for writing, editing,
design, production and data base use and will start looking at
that from the first day. But first, we put out a magazine.
One more way in which we save money: Predictability. Months ahead
of time, when movies and shows go into production, we can assign
stories. Weeks ahead of time, we can draw up mockups, knowing
exactly what reviews, stories and photos will appear on each page
with space left for late-breaking news, what there is of it. So
We should -- we must -- close pages of this magazine every day of
the week. We nust take advantage of the predictability to save
time -- mostly overtime. And that’s how we really intend to save
money at Entertainment Weekly: with management.
I have other ideas for changing the order in which things are
done on a magazine -- sometimes writing the text first and then
giving it to the art department, for instance. And 1 want to
steal a few ideas from my newspaper experience -- combining the
functions of research, copy-editing and page-closing in a more
Powerful single post, for example. I haven't had a chance to
think through every detail.
The point is this: Wo are determined to find new, more efficient,
and cheaper ways to put out the magazine. And this magazine isideal for such an effort. But more important right now is the
talent search. If we find the right writers and editors and
designers, we can put out a megezine around them and look good
I believe that Entertainment Weekly meets the needs of consumers
today. Thus it will mect the needs of advertisers. And I believe
it meets our needs in Time Inc. But we are not alone, I’m surely
not the first and I’n definitely not the only person to have this
idea. I just hope we are the first to act on it.