With the Chinese New Year steadily approaching, it was a time for us to reflect on who we’ve become as an agency in the four short years we’ve been in business. 2010 is the Year of the Tiger. And with that, comes someone born to be brave, adventurous, self-assured, optimistic and passionate. Someone who is rebellious, dynamic, unpredictable and charming. Someone who likes a little competition, is a natural leader, has a strong sense of dignity and intelligence. And above all else, is proud of being different from others.
If you are a fellow Emanator or you’ve worked with one, it’s hard to miss the striking similarities of our personality with those born in the Year of the Tiger. We bring passion to all we do. We celebrate our unique culture and way of working. We’re optimistic about what we can deliver and where we have the right to play. We have a sense of irreverence and rebelliousness when it comes to having fun. We bring dynamism to everything we do. And most of all, we’re proud of who we are and what we bring to the table.
As we embark on the year ahead, change is all around us: we now sit on both sides of the ocean (hello London office!), in nicer chairs and digs (hello new office space!) and at award dinners that will hopefully parlay into major achievements for the little agency that could (
hello PR Week – Mid Size Agency of the Year nomination!).
I know we were technically born in the Year of the Dog (2006) but I think it’s safe to say there’s been something of a re-birth stirring around these parts…2010, hear us roar!
Blair Meisels
I have been a foodie since I first understood what that meant. So many memories center on what I was cooking or eating at the time and it is difficult to remember places I’ve been without first thinking about what I ate when I was there. Catching a whiff of a favorite bakery sweet (Italian seven-layer cookies, sourdough bread) or a sniff of a delectable savory (smoked gouda, sautéed onions, grilling steak) transports me to my “happy place.”
Between tasting and savoring everything I can get my hands on, and poring over and trying out recipes on anyone brave or hungry enough, I have always been a voracious reader of foodie magazines. And Gourmet, the self-proclaimed ‘magazine of good living,’ was always the first one I’d reach for to read – until October 5, when Condé Nast announced that the November issue of Gourmet would be the magazine’s last.
As Stephanie Clifford so eloquently put it in her
New York Times article, “Gourmet was to food what Vogue was to fashion.” Under the leadership of Earle MacAusland, the magazine launched as a way to give its readers ways to live “the good life.” For forty years (from 1941-1980), MacAusland’s slick, color magazine successfully delivered recipes, articles and stunning photography of food and international destinations to the publication’s gourmand, upscale, cosmopolitan readership. For forty years, MacAusland listened to his audience. Gourmet drew an even larger readership through the economic booms of the 80s and 90s, with even more Americans having disposable income to enjoy “the good life.” Through the boom, and even with the 1983 buy-out by Condé Nast, the magazine continued to publish with its audience in mind.
Now, while I may not be the target audience (I’m certainly not wealthy and certainly haven’t been reading since 1941), the PR practitioner in me can see how the tide of the magazine turned as Ruth Reichl assumed the role of editor in chief in 1999. Reichl, while an exquisite writer, acclaimed food journalist and world-renowned culinary expert, stopped listening to her audience. The traditional Gourmet reader wanted to see stunning photographs of lobster prepared in the French style, then read an article on how to recreate the delicacy themselves, then read and see more opulent photographs about where to find the world’s best lobster in a James Beard Award-winning restaurant in Provence. What Reichl gave them was David Foster Wallace’s 2005 essay
“Consider the Lobster” which discussed lobster sensory neurons and the ethics of boiling a creature alive.
As the content began to feature the uglier side of “good living” and of food preparation, this target stopped reading. As Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” explained in an
AP article on the magazine’s closure, “[Gourmet] was reaching an audience that wasn’t sensitive to the political and ecological implications of their eating. It was largely a hedonistic community that Ruth [Reichl] introduced to some hard issues.” And, as the once-loyal readership began to dwindle, the advertisers followed.
With the last issue just hitting newsstands, I’m sad to see Gourmet go. I still have my storage bins full of dog-eared back issues and epicurious.com. And one extremely powerful PR lesson: Always listen to your audience.
Farewell, Gourmet. This foodie will miss you.
Alexandra Peterson
