As noted here, the official opening of Martha Stewart hunting season occurred last week. Taking aim today with remarkably similar stories (Is there a business without the woman?) are the Washington Post and WSJ. For really hard-core Martha hunters, there’s also Christopher Byron’s
My feeling is that this is too much ado about less than nothing. Martha-branded magazines and other products are successful with an audience who don’t make their purchasing decisions based on stock market schemes or the punditry (in the guise of investigative reporting) of the Journal and Post. (A better place to get your Martha news is the Onion.)
Perhaps I’m bitter. I failed miserably when I predicted Martha’s demise over a decade ago when she entered into the K-Mart agreement. I was sure it would allienate her upscale following. How was I to know that her following really lives in Hooterville rather than East Hampton?
And as for her being, er, “difficult,” what rock would you have to be living under not to have heard what a miserable, lonely, tragic figure she is?
Consumers (and I’m one) make purchasing decisions ultimately on the quality and value of a product. Obviously her target audience love her products enough to avoid reevaluating them based on new information regarding her private life, management style or potential felonies.
In a culture where a mentally challenged rapist can generate $100 million in revenues for boxing one night, a child molester can be the top recording artist and a movie star shoplifter can get on the cover of a national magazine to mock her trial (did she run this by her defense attorney?), is it any surprise when people really don’t care about blemishes in the private life of their favorite decorating “doyne”.
Okay, that’s enough cynicism for the day.