It's a magazine. Big, glossy, expensive. It was bound to go under sooner or later, like the rest of the dinosaurs. If all those awards and bottles of wine and so forth were so precious, why would those employees have been keeping them at the office? Might as well have stored them on the Titanic.

More to the point - doesn't the artwork, bottles of wine etc belong to their employers? They may need to auction the stuff!

I was a subscriber and always loved the beautiful layouts and food porn of various types. It appeared to be a classy operation. It's publishers apparently never got the memo about human decency being part of a classy attitude. I'm sad for the true creators of the work that brought me much enjoyment.

Robert Sietsema

Frank, it was that they loved their jobs and had so many things they'd been given that they couldn't consume it all, and most of the offices were small and unbelievably cluttered. It's the opulence of a bygone era, I guess.

Robert Sietsema

Haha, Peter--It probably does belong to Conde Nast officially. I wonder if Bon Appetit is going to move into the Gourmet offices? Their main offices are located on the West Coast, and the Bone presence at 4 Times Square was limited to one empty reception area.

I wonder what the BOn Appetit employees are thinking right now - relieved, schadenfreude, or sympathy? I feel so bad for the Gourmet employees. Imagine...pouring half of your life's energy and dedication into a publication...

not sure how Conde Nast came to have two major food mags, but keeping both afloat in a huge recession? Also, their margins musta been razor thin...

Robert Sietsema

Gourmet was East Coast based, while Bon Appetit originated in California and is still based there. Gourmet ad pages were down 45% since last year, so I guess that was part of the reason Conde chose it to shut down, but the magazines were very different in point of view and content.

Given the popularity of the Food Network (among kids and adults), the eating at home trend motivated by the economic downturn and the iconic status of celebrity chefs, it is apparent Gourmet just wasn't keeping up with the times. The Conde Nast folks may blame the ecoonmy and the internet, but more important was the insularity of the Conde nast culture in New York. Food is in! Michael Pollan is hot! Rick Bayless is a God!

Robert Sietsema

I agree, Jeepers, theirs was a rather effete idea of food culture, and they played too much to the rich, but that's the ad base that they had developed, and they didn't know how to switch. Besides, Food & Wine long ago staked out the celebrity chef territory.

I have many fond memories reading Gourmet while I was growing up and pulling out different recipes to cook. But since then the magazine has changed and I dont necessarily think for the better. It never really evolved in the right direction with the times. I am sad for the people who lost their jobs and sad for the end of an era.

It wasn't declining readership that was the problem - the circulation, within spitting distance of a million, is higher than it ever has been. It wasn't the internet - the Gourmet website is pretty great - and it certainly wasn't lack of interest in the subject matter. The subscribers to Every Day with Rachel Ray are not the same people who subscribe to Gourmet, and they probably shouldn't have been.

Was it wrong for a food magazine to build its ad base around luxury goods and high-end car manufacturers instead of heavily processed foods? In retrospect, perhaps. But to the end, Gourmet remained a magazine where writers - including Robert Sietsema - could do their best work.

Robert Sietsema

Man, I still have your NY reviews in my clipping file, talk about great work!