Yes I find that I am an exception, as James said. I do not know anyone of my friends or fellow students that create blogs nor are on too many social networking sites, besides the all-popular Facebook and a few on Twitter. They certainly like to share info, whether it is through Facebook or word-of-mouth, but in terms of creating their own original content, it is very low. I like to share my ideas and content, which is why I have a blog, but the typical Gen Y’er does not do this. I hope that clarifies.

Kristin

I do think Kristin’s observation about the typical Gen Yer not being content producers still holds weight. I also caught that in the interview. Although she does have a blog and produces content herself, I think she’s the exception to the rule, though she may argue that she is merely sharing information and not necessarily creating content. I suppose it’s a fine line.

I will also glance at Kristin’s blog, which by the way, is the antithesis of her comment: “Although our age group is not about content creation (i.e. blogging and consistent status updates), we do like to share information.” Does that hint of commercialism?

Michael

I’m sure I’m looking at Cookie more from a parent’s perspective than a prospective advertiser. When I consider how your clients viewed Cookie, it seems different than how I (in my dad role) experienced Cookie. I admit that I was just so impressed with the magazine that for the longest time I never even saw it as aspirational. It just seemed right. It was impeccably designed, had fun music reviews and the food section was a bit quirky. But occasionally I’d come across something that was so ludicrous (i.e. a $3,000 swing set) that it would disconnect my experience with the Cookie brand (at least what it was in my mind). Granted, I wasn’t exactly the target reader, but I probably wasn’t that far off either.

I see now that the point of Cookie was to be very urban and moneyed, but I don’t think that’s what made Cookie resonate with so many readers. For me, it’s charm was in it’s ability to connect with today’s parents, not because it was an affluent brand, but because it wasn’t yet another boring parenting magazine devoid of excitement. Who knows, maybe Cookies’ readers and advertisers had different expectations of the brand just as you and I do.

I’m also hoping that a more accessible version of Cookie emerges. I really think there is a huge market for a magazine that speaks to today’s new generation of parents.

Thanks for this post. Not only did I enjoy your insights – I am trilled for the introduction to you and your firm.
Like you, I am sad to see Cookie go. I wrote about this earlier in the week. http://www.fortyweeks.com/content/and-so-the-cookie-crumbles-a-sad-day/
Your view and even your expectations for Cookie are somewhat different from mine. I have always considered it to be the bible of what I call “aspriational parenting” — it was like many other Conde titles (Vogue for example) a vision of something quite fantastic and out of reach. It was, as you pointed out – very urban and moneyed – but to me that was the point.

My clients used Cookie as a branding partner more than anything else. Showing up in the pages of Cookie was a significant statement – it clearly defined brands and made clear their intention.
I do think there is room for a more accessible Cookie. And I am optimistic that such a book with emerge. As you point out – it is important to “see yourself” in magazines — even if what you see is a fantasy of who you might be — maybe the Cookie fantasy was just too far?

Looking forward also, to more great conversation!