There is a popular notion that the editor of a woman's magazine should
be a woman. At first thought, perhaps, this sounds logical. But it is a
curious fact that by far the larger number of periodicals for women, the
world over, are edited by men; and where, as in some cases, a woman is
the proclaimed editor, the direction of the editorial policy is
generally in the hands of a man, or group of men, in the background. Why
this is so has never been explained, any more than why the majority of
women's dressmakers are men; why music, with its larger appeal to women,
has been and is still being composed, largely, by men, and why its
greatest instrumental performers are likewise men; and why the church,
with its larger membership of women, still has, as it always has had,
men for its greatest preachers.
In fact, we may well ponder whether the full editorial authority and
direction of a modern magazine, either essentially feminine in its
appeal or not, can safely be entrusted to a woman when one considers how
largely executive is the nature of such a position, and how thoroughly
sensitive the modern editor must be to the hundred and one practical
business matters which today enter into and form so large a part of the
editorial duties. We may question whether women have as yet had
sufficient experience in the world of business to cope successfully with
the material questions of a pivotal editorial position. Then, again, it
is absolutely essential in the conduct of a magazine with a feminine or
home appeal to have on the editorial staff women who are experts in
their line; and the truth is that women will work infinitely better
under the direction of a man than of a woman.
It would seem from the present outlook that, for some time, at least,
the so-called woman's magazine of large purpose and wide vision is very
likely to be edited by a man. It is a question, however, whether the day
of the woman's magazine, as we have known it, is not passing. Already
the day has gone for the woman's magazine built on the old lines which
now seem so grotesque and feeble in the light of modern growth. The
interests of women and of men are being brought closer with the years,
and it will not be long before they will entirely merge. This means a
constantly diminishing necessity for the distinctly feminine magazine.
Naturally, there will always be a field in the essentially feminine
pursuits which have no place in the life of a man, but these are rapidly
being cared for by books, gratuitously distributed, issued by the
manufacturers of distinctly feminine and domestic wares; for such
publications the best talent is being employed, and the results are
placed within easy access of women, by means of newspaper advertisement,
the store-counter, or the mails. These will sooner or later--and much
sooner than later--supplant the practical portions of the woman's
magazine, leaving only the general contents, which are equally
interesting to men and to women. Hence the field for the magazine with
the essentially feminine appeal is contracting rather than broadening,
and it is likely to contract much more rapidly in the future.
The field was altogether different when Edward Bok entered it in 1889.
It was not only wide open, but fairly crying out to be filled. The day
of Godey's Lady's Book had passed; Peterson's Magazine was breathing its
last; and the home or women's magazines that had attempted to take their
place were sorry affairs. It was this consciousness of a void ready to
be filled that made the Philadelphia experiment so attractive to the
embryo editor. He looked over the field and reasoned that if such
magazines as did exist could be fairly successful, if women were ready
to buy such, how much greater response would there be to a magazine of
higher standards, of larger initiative--a magazine that would be an
authoritative clearing-house for all the problems confronting women in
the home, that brought itself closely into contact with those problems
and tried to solve them in an entertaining and efficient way; and yet a
magazine of uplift and inspiration: a magazine, in other words, that
would give light and leading in the woman's world.
The method of editorial expression in the magazines of 1889 was also
distinctly vague and prohibitively impersonal. The public knew the name
of scarcely a single editor of a magazine: there was no personality that
stood out in the mind: the accepted editorial expression was the
indefinite "we"; no one ventured to use the first person singular and
talk intimately to the reader. Edward Bok's biographical reading had
taught him that the American public loved a personality: that it was
always ready to recognize and follow a leader, provided, of course, that
the qualities of leadership were demonstrated. He felt the time had
come--the reference here and elsewhere is always to the realm of popular
magazine literature appealing to a very wide audience--for the editor of
some magazine to project his personality through the printed page and to
convince the public that he was not an oracle removed from the people,
but a real human being who could talk and not merely write on paper.
He saw, too, that the average popular magazine of 1889 failed of large
success because it wrote down to the public--a grievous mistake that so
many editors have made and still make. No one wants to be told, either
directly or indirectly, that he knows less than he does, or even that he
knows as little as he does: every one is benefited by the opposite
implication, and the public will always follow the leader who
comprehends this bit of psychology. There is always a happy medium
between shooting over the public's head and shooting too far under it.
And it is because of the latter aim that we find the modern popular
magazine the worthless thing that, in so many instances, it is to-day.
It is the rare editor who rightly gauges his public psychology. Perhaps
that is why, in the enormous growth of the modern magazine, there have
been produced so few successful editors. The average editor is obsessed
with the idea of "giving the public what it wants," whereas, in fact,
the public, while it knows what it wants when it sees it, cannot clearly
express its wants, and never wants the thing that it does ask for,
although it thinks it does at the time. But woe to the editor and his
periodical if he heeds that siren voice!
The editor has, therefore, no means of finding it out aforehand by
putting his ear to the ground. Only by the simplest rules of psychology
can he edit rightly so that he may lead, and to the average editor of
to-day, it is to be feared, psychology is a closed book. His mind is all
too often focussed on the circulation and advertising, and all too
little on the intangibles that will bring to his periodical the results
essential in these respects.
The editor is the pivot of a magazine. On him everything turns. If his
gauge of the public is correct, readers will come: they cannot help
coming to the man who has something to say himself, or who presents
writers who have. And if the reader comes, the advertiser must come. He
must go where his largest market is: where the buyers are. The
advertiser, instead of being the most difficult factor in a magazine
proposition, as is so often mistakenly thought, is, in reality, the
simplest. He has no choice but to advertise in the successful
periodical. He must come along. The editor need never worry about him.
If the advertiser shuns the periodical's pages, the fault is rarely that
of the advertiser: the editor can generally look for the reason nearer
home.
One of Edward Bok's first acts as editor was to offer a series of prizes
for the best answers to three questions he put to his readers: what in
the magazine did they like least and why; what did they like best and
why; and what omitted feature or department would they like to see
installed? Thousands of answers came, and these the editor personally
read carefully and classified. Then he gave his readers' suggestions
back to them in articles and departments, but never on the level
suggested by them. He gave them the subjects they asked for, but
invariably on a slightly higher plane; and each year he raised the
standard a notch. He always kept "a huckleberry or two" ahead of his
readers. His psychology was simple: come down to the level which the
public sets and it will leave you at the moment you do it. It always
expects of its leaders that they shall keep a notch above or a step
ahead. The American public always wants something a little better than
it asks for, and the successful man, in catering to it, is he who
follows this golden rule.