Basing my judgment on “probability of success” is a useless endeavor, as I realize that few new magazines will be published five years from now. So when I refer to these magazines as notable, I’m not saying you’ll still see every one of these 30 titles in a few years. Both history and odds say it probably won’t happen. In fact, out of last year’s top 30 notables, only 25 are still being published. Although this is a healthy 75 percent survival rate, and much better than the 2002 60 percent survival rate for the notables, one has to keep in mind the overall survival rate: that two in every 10 magazines will reach their 10th birthday. Clearly, I don’t pick the notables in terms of what I predict will survive. Radar, for example, is among the notables but is already in a suspended status. Instead, my choices reflect my opinion and belief that these magazines are innovative and will somehow make an impact on the industry.

In analyzing the magazines of 2003, in terms of their innovation and impact, I try to answer five basic questions.

1. How much publicity did the magazine generate?
   We scanned the media and found all the information we could about each launch. Some new magazines had more articles written about them than all the articles that appeared in the premiere issue of the magazine itself. Radar once again takes the cake in this criteria It was, in fact, the “Talk” of the town.
2. How relevant was the magazine to its intended market?
   The editors and creators of Dogs for Kids saw a fresh market, while small, of pet lovers of a specific age, a very young age. This was about as “niche” as you can get, but for that market, it was incredibly relevant and just what they were looking for. V-Life, the monthly from Variety, saw a great need to expand its daily and weekly coverage to focus on the lifestyle of actors and other celebrities, also fits into this segment. It gave Variety a chance to expand its brand and, at the same time, reach a new market.
3. Was the magazine notably diversified and specialized?
   Magazine publishers are quickly realizing the gold mines to be found in specialized groups. Lifetime was created as a print version of the hit television network with the simple motto of “real women, real life.” Vegas devoted its pages to images of and stories about the hot city with the same name.
4. How innovative were the magazines?
   New titles usually fit into three categories: the groundbreakers, the quality copy-cats, and the cheap imitators who are willing to take a chance, based on the success (or the apparent success) of other titles already in the field. Two of the year’s groundbreakers include Travel Girl and Dandelion for their ability to take the woman’s magazine to a new venue and to provide a content that says ever so gently, “Men, please bug off.”
5. Was the magazine so bizarre it had to be included?
   If the answer was “yes,” we included it. And as far as bizarre magazines go, Trailer Trash, the magazine that you don’t even have to ask what is it all about tops the list. Rescue, is another one that really needs to be rescued from itself rather than dispensing advice to rescue other people.

The following magazines have met these criteria and have therefore qualified as “notable.” They are not ranked in order of notoriety but simply listed alphabetically.

Finally, some of these magazines were launched on multi-million dollar budgets, while others were started by people using money borrowed from relatives. The journey to achieve the 3-Fs of journalism–Fun, Fame and Fortune–always seems to start with another set of 3-Fs: Friends, Family and Fools to bank-roll your magazine. All of these publications, however, have one thing in common: They have recognized a market—sustainable or not—and sought to fill a niche within it. Good luck and keep on reading.

The Notables

2003 saw many new exciting titles, so choosing just one magazine as “Launch of the Year” was a difficult task. As I read over and over the 30 notable launches, one magazine continued to jump out at me for a number of reasons, the least of them being the name of its founder: Martha Stewart. So I took that as a sign and chose Everyday Food as 2003’s Launch of the Year. Not only did the magazine jump in the ring with the big dogs (RD’s A Taste of Home, Gourmet, all the Better Homes and Gardens SIPs, and Martha’s own Martha Stewart Living and US Weekly), but it was able to stand on its own two feet without getting TKO'd. In the midst of all Martha’s troubles, a new venture that was tested for four issues received the green light, at the same time Martha’s other magazines were getting the yellow (if not the red) light.