Considering that they had the consultants in there, Conde Nast's closure of Gourmet (and Cookie, Elegent Bride and Modern Bride) shouldn't be too surprising. There is, too, a bit of elitism, especially when it's noted that sister publication Bon Appetit was spared the axe1. For now.

It was the early 90s when I first got interested in cooking and baking, and could afford to buy magazines. At least where I was living, the choices were Gourmet and BA. BA seemed friendlier. Normal people cooked from BA. As far as Gourmet was concerned in those years, good food was to be found in California and New York City. (I think this shows Gourmet's NYC bias; NYC was so much the food capital of the country that it could only be rivaled by an entire state.) As a native Philadelphian, this irked me. Fifth largest city in the country, top-20 largest metro areas in the world, birthplace of the country, first capital, home of Ben Franklin and you know what we're known for? Cream cheese that's actually named for Philadelphia, New York (state)2.

At 22, I don't know that I could even have read M.F.K. Fisher with any appreciation. I certainly didn't appreciate her heirs. It was detached from my grandparents' immigrant background, my own relative poverty, my non-New York-ness. Although BA was even then very recipe-centric, it had more writing about food and food culture.

Under Reichl, it was supposed to have changed for the better, focussing more on regional American cooking. (Not everyone agrees.) That almost makes me wish I'd picked up an issue, but the covers were still un-enticing: the close-up of some dish of food; the "best of ..." and "top ..." teasers. I'm not young but even I thought Gourmet was old.

(What I really want is Saveur, which was full of food essays, oddball photography, American regional cooking, unknown-in-America international cooking. The founder proudly stated that they'd never featured a turkey on the cover for the November issue. The first November after he sold the magazine, the new owners proudly featured a turkey. It was appropriate. The zing was gone.)

I often judge a magazine by the last page; I read most magazines back to front. Editors usually reserve the last page for a one-page feature. Saveur's was an archival photograph of people enjoying/experiencing food; BA's is a brief interview with a celebrity about food; Cook's Illustrated puts its index and equipment source information there; Good Food runs the Cookie of the Month (or is that Martha Stewart Living? MS Living might have done that while MS was in jail.) I have no clue what Gourmet does, and I do have a few issues. It was just not memorable, and yet I have issues, articles and recipes from other magazines burned into my brain.

So I pulled out all five of my back issues of Gourmet — June '09, December '05, December '99 (all under Ruth Reichl), December '94 and November '93. The covers are immediately different, with more teasers . Unfortunately, the teasers read like Women's Day, even this summer's issue: "Special All-Grill Issue" "20 Burgers You Must Eat Right Now".

I briefly wondered why I'd bought it, then remembered that Maricel Presilla had written an article for the issue. It is thin. The content is good; the layout is modern; the photographs super-saturated with a shallow depth of field. Modern, attractive but those teasers! Couldn't they get whoever designed Saveur's covers? And the neon colors; were they sharing a graphic designer with Wired? The cover doesn't do any justice to the content within.

Some have argued it's impossible to sell Gourmet's quality when everyone can get schleck for free. Food bloggers, they're looking at you3.

To answer Tyler Florence's question: I don't think they were out of touch, but damn, those covers didn't show it. But I don't think the competition is much better; or rather, if Conde Nast had owned any other of BA's competitors, that they wouldn't have shut them too. Saveur was and Cook's Illustrated is excellent, but both are works of passion by very talented but modestly insane owner/editors who are content not to dominate the market. Good Food is (or was) geared to people with jobs who want a tasty, home-cooked meal that isn't the same ten things, but lets them eat before the kids fall asleep at the table. It too, has a passionate and modestly insane founder. BA is what it is, but even it has added more essays (Orangette) and a regional focus; the October issue was, in fact, all regional American cooking, which might reflect the budget more than a commitment to American cooking.

But once the consultants came in? Little to no chance without a strong profit margin.

1According to the LA Times, BA had more subscribers and was cheaper to produce.

2On vacations out of the country, I spend a lot of time saying "like the cheese" to strangers.

3This is not a blog. Call it what you want. I call it a collection of essays.