 |
|
|
Art Imitates Commerce. "What Conde Nast magazines do best is to democratize sophisticated, aristocratic tastes," says James Truman, announcing his plans to edit a new magazine that will "give Gaugin the star treatment," as reported by David Carr in The New York Times. This new magazine does not yet have a name, a business plan or a publication schedule. But Mr. Truman thinks the time is right for "curated articles" and to introduce a new set of images to popular culture. "We're living increasingly in a culture of images, but the scope of those images keep shrinking," he says. "Whether you are an artist in New York or a dentist in Milwaukee, you are living your life according to certain creative principles, and I see that reflected less and less in popular culture."
So far, Mr. Truman's vision exists only in a prototype that "shows a magazine focused on art, sculpture, architecture and photography ... that aim a lens at specific themes or artists." For example, a feature called "Art Imitates Love," consists of "lavish spreads of artistic representations of romantic love, with work from the photographer Nan Goldin and the painter John Currin. Also featured is a "tutorial on Minimalist art that instructs the reader how, exactly, to find something in what seems to be nothing." As Mr. Truman sees it, the magazine celebrates "legitimate art" just as other Conde Nast, www.condenet.com, titles (e.g., Vogue, Lucky , Gourmet and GQ) celebrate other categories of commerce. Whether the concept will make cash registers ring is another matter, of course.
Even Conde Nast chairman, S.I. Newhouse, himself an "avid art collector" apparently was a hard sell for this project. But Mr. Truman is convinced the time is right, supporting his position by pointing out "that 60 million Americans went to some kind of art exhibition in the last year." However, others point out that museums and magazines are very different kinds of experiences. "The reason that museums are doing well, and that many art magazines don't, is that people are allowed to come in and make their interpretations of the work," observes Carolyn Glasoe, an L.A. art dealer. "People can look at the work and take what they can based on their own personal lives." James Truman sees something else, though. "The logical, conventional reaction to it is to suggest that it does not compute, that there won't be a big audience for it. But I disagree," he says. If all goes well, his dream of bringing visual art to the masses will take off sometime in 2006.
Lawyers 'n' Lattes. Jeff Hughes is a lawyer who thinks "the middle class has been neglected" where legal services are concerned, and his solution is to franchise coffee shops that also dispense legal advice," reports Regan Morris in The New York Times. "The poor have legal aid and the wealthy have more lawyers than they need," says Jeff, who, for the past eight years has run a cafe called Legal Grind, www.legalgrind.com, in Santa Monica, California, where you can walk in, grab a cup, and for $25 get 15 minutes worth of legal advice on anything from landlord-tenant disputes to bankruptcy to drunken driving offenses. Charges for various types of paperwork preparations on the menu along with those for various "coffee drinks, which have names like Law'ttes and Cop'uccinos."
The enterprise has been fairly successful for Jeff Hughes, who last year opened a second location in Inglewood, and is now thinking about turning Legal Grind into the Starbucks of legal advice. Naturally, there are legal problems with his idea! The very concept of a franchise involves selling a "format to franchisees in exchange for a share of their future revenues." The legalities of that vary from state-to-state. For example, "in most states (though not in California)" there is "a ban ... on profiting from referrals, which are a big source of Legal Grind's revenues." In addition, it is generally considered unethical for lawyers and non-lawyers to share fees, "because the practice could drive up costs for consumers."
The net of it is, franchising Legal Grind is not an open-and-shut case (sorry), and Jeff Hughes is busy exploring alternatives, such as seeking non-for-profit status. This could allow operators and lawyers to make some money, although it "could change Legal Grind's mission to attract the middle class and could make it more like legal aid services that are already available to the poor." At the same time, Matthew Shay of the International Franchise Association, says he thinks Legal Grind has all the markings of a successful franchise, because it "is a unique distribution method for marketing and presenting products and services." He comments: "If this franchise provides a need that helps deliver a service that is otherwise sometimes challenging, then this may be a wonderful concept. Jeff Hughes certainly thinks so: "I'm determined to expand," he says, and adds that the only way to address the obstacles "is to get out in the marketplace and give it a try."
Tim Manners, editor
|
