Here's something that feels counter-intuitive: the launch of a pop magazine. An actual pop magazine.
It's called We Love Pop. Or, rather We [heart symbol] Pop.
There's some odd things about it, though. The editor is Malcolm Mackenzie, who previously was in charge at thenowdefunct thelondonpaper, Murdoch's short-lived London freesheet. It seems a bit of a strange shift from pushing bite-sized fact-gobbets into commuter hands to creating a pop magazine for teenagers, don't you think?
The title is described by Media Week as being:
The first issue of the magazine is out on Wednesday (20 July) with a cover price of £1 and its launch will be supported by a marketing campaign, including point of sale, outdoor media and digital.What MediaWeek neglects to mention is that, unlike Smash Hits or Number One, this is clearly pointed at girls. And just because you might say 'surely liking pop isn't gender specific', the magazine cover is slathered in pink and has "boys" as one of the coverlines. It couldn't be more offputting for teenage blokes if it had a photo of a dick caught in a zipper on the front page.
The magazine will target a core audience of 13-15 year olds with in-depth interviews with pop stars, behind-the-scenes exclusives, photos and a "high-end cover gift" designed to appeal to a savvy teen audience.
Given that teen magazines have mostly been closing rather than opening, the very idea seems a bit audacious. Who would put money into such a title?
TeenToday lets the cat out of the bag:
Fresh off the back of the runaway success of X Magazine (couldn’t find it anywhere, lasted about 4 editions, editor jumped ship) we’ve heard that Universal Records in partnership with Egmont Publishing are about to launch a brand new pop mag called (wait for it…) We Love Pop.So despite all the claims of the market wanting the title, the real people who want a pop magazine is... a record label. I suspect this won't last much beyond finding out that the forces that crushed the successful Smash Hits brand are less kind still to a fledgling.
CORRECTION: I misread the MediaWeek article yesterday; Malcolm Mackenzie was music editor of thelondonpaper and not the actual editor. Which makes a bit more sense. Thanks to the commenter who pointed that out, and apologies for the error.