This is a very inward-looking article. All of its seven points add to the conversation, but they seem overly focused on mechanics, rather than vision.
The best editors have a uniquely good understanding of readers' aspirations, anxieties, interests, etc. Such editors are equivalent to startup CEOs who can sense what a new product needs to be -- and how it will electrify the world.
Some editors communicate this very clearly, with maxims that everyone quotes. Others make it come to life in opaque ways that are both brilliant and frustrating. And OP is quite right that this is often a team exercise. But one way or another, the best editors get the vision right. I've heard it said that a successful magazine isn't just a collection of articles; it's a thrilling club that invites the reader in, to become part of an almost-magical grouping of like-minded people.
What's not covered -- but should be -- is the question of how long a visionary can stay ahead of everyone else. The longest-serving editors often have a period of decline near the end, when they become quite cranky and rule by fear. Staff turnover becomes high. The old vision starts to feel stale or brittle. People keep waiting for the boss to have another flash of inspiration that will get it all on track again, but such hopes are satisfied only intermittently, if at all.
It's hard to be brilliant. It's even harder to be brilliant for more than a decade.
Thanks; it sounds like you have a lot of experience in the field. Where have you written/edited, if you don't mind sharing? (Sorry if I'm the only one on HN who doesn't know.)
Perfectly reasonable question, sorry for having been opaque in the original post.
Print or online magazines: Forbes, Fast Company, Bloomberg Businessweek on a sustained basis.
Plus a little freelancing for Parade, Harvard Business Review, MIT Technology Review, TheAtlantic.com, SmartMoney, Via, Readers Digest, Stanford alumni magazine and,in the throes of book promotion, a couple of the airline flight magazines.
On a tangent: If you want to understand what Robert Silvers and the New York Review of Books was/is about, and a compelling vision of what an intellectual publication can be, read the posthumous tributes to him by the writers (including some names you will recognize):
The best editors have a uniquely good understanding of readers' aspirations, anxieties, interests, etc. Such editors are equivalent to startup CEOs who can sense what a new product needs to be -- and how it will electrify the world.
Some editors communicate this very clearly, with maxims that everyone quotes. Others make it come to life in opaque ways that are both brilliant and frustrating. And OP is quite right that this is often a team exercise. But one way or another, the best editors get the vision right. I've heard it said that a successful magazine isn't just a collection of articles; it's a thrilling club that invites the reader in, to become part of an almost-magical grouping of like-minded people.
What's not covered -- but should be -- is the question of how long a visionary can stay ahead of everyone else. The longest-serving editors often have a period of decline near the end, when they become quite cranky and rule by fear. Staff turnover becomes high. The old vision starts to feel stale or brittle. People keep waiting for the boss to have another flash of inspiration that will get it all on track again, but such hopes are satisfied only intermittently, if at all.
It's hard to be brilliant. It's even harder to be brilliant for more than a decade.