No, Hillary Clinton was NOT the Wrong Choice for the New Newsweek Cover
I saw a short article in Adweek that annoyed me- it said she was the wrong person to have on the new Newsweek’s maiden issue. Here is what they say:
Tina Brown seems to have a soft spot for Hillary Clinton. For her first, highly anticipated issue of Newsweek, Brown put the nation’s chief diplomat on the March 8th cover. It’s not the first time that Brown has gone to Clinton for a big issue—she was also featured on the cover of the debut issue of Talk, Brown’s much-hyped and short-lived glossy.
The new Newsweek, out this week, could be a big newsstand seller, given all the hype around Brown’s effort to breathe new life into the iconic but staid news magazine as part of its unusual union with The Daily Beast. But, given her record as a newsstand draw, Clinton might have been the wrong choice.
Both Time and Newsweek put Clinton on their March 17, 2008, covers, when her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was at its height. Newsweek’s “Hear Her Roar” issue moved 66,000 copies, well below the magazine’s 82,756 average single copy sales for the first half of that year. Time’s issue, “The Fighter,” sold 89,145 copies versus an average of 95,950. Figures are from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
The subtitle of the article says “Secretary of State has traditionally been bad news for newsweeklies” but then goes on to talk about two random covers from when she was a Presidential candidate 3 years ago, in 2008. Why did the author reach all the way back to 2008 for selective circulation numbers when she was on the cover of the November 16, 2009 Time Magazine last year as Secretary of State? What were those numbers? She has been more popular than President Obama, with the only exception being the time period immediately following his inauguration in Jan. 2009. In fact, polls have shown she’s more popular than all other members of the administration, so perhaps that was a factor in Newsweek’s decision to put her on the cover- that and the fact that March is Women’s History Month and the issue is dedicated to…women? Duh.
I’m sorry, but this sort of thing annoys me.