Real Simple has what the movie business calls legs. Not only did it do well out of gate but it continues to rake in the cash from advertisers and delight readers which all adds up to a sure fire money machine for Time Inc.
The first time I picked up this title from the newstand, it even felt different. The selection of that smooth but velvety cover stock spoke to me in subtle tones. The layouts are, well, simple, without being bare bones.
The stories are short and quite useful. Several of the recipes actually work well and are designed to help streamline the home life after a busy day.
It succeeds on so many levels that their own largesse is beginning to dampen its allure through - horrors! - line extensions and one-offs. But it now also has
Real Simple TV, which premiered nationwide on PBS in January 2006, and
Real Simple 2- in-1 cleaning tools, which went on sale in Target stores in February 2006. Talk about brand power.
The most recent issue I read may not have been as fulfilling as the month prior but it was still filled with more than enough value to justify its cover cost (not the discounted sub cost - the cover cost). How many magazines can you say that about?
Interesting facts: Five of TimeWarner's 10 most profitable magazines were launched in the last 20 years. Real Simple, which is one of those five, turned profitable in just over three years after it was first published in 2000. Milk that baby!
It is easy to dismiss a juggernaut like Real Simple once it is up and plowing through fields of cash but when it launched no one really was looking forward to another title in this field. I think I still hear the faint echo of that collective groan. But, hey, if you really want to groan go pick up a copy of
Good Housekeeping.
Just how poor could their timing be to have Tom Cruise on the cover? And what's with that cover photo?! Geez, put the PR and Art Director filters on pause people. With all the backlash going on with the
sofa jumper you can bet the editors are popping the
Tylenol as they review their sell-through numbers.