Last Friday we told you that Adweek’s Michael Wolff wasn’t getting fired even though there were lots of rumors swirling that he was. Well now that the “Wolff is dead” gossip has dissipated, WWD has started a new one: Wolff isn’t being fired, but now he might quit!

An “insider” told WWD, “Michael talked to Jimmy [Finkelstein]. Jimmy said he is not firing Michael and is confident they can work out their differences. Michael seems less confident.” Dun dun dun!

The story — that Finkelstein wants Adweek to go back to its roots and Wolff wants the title to explore more — remains the same, and Wolff has never mentioned wanting to leave, but hell, why not start up another rumor? It’s certainly more exciting than the truth.

Adweek is going to announce the winners of its annual Hot List — which celebrates the best in a variety of media — on December 5, but we got a look at some of the nominees for the magazine category early, so we thought we’d share them with you.

Yeah, it’s not a sneak peek at the winners, but it’s still sort of exciting, right? In any case, below are most of the magazines that made the cut. Head to Adweek on Monday to see what other media received nominations.

General Interest:
Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, National Geographic, The New Yorker, New York, Reader’s Digest, Smithsonian, Harper’s, Ebony, Popular Science, PopularScience, The Week.

Travel:
Condé Nast Traveler, Nat Geo Traveler, Travel + Leisure, Departures, Budget Travel, Afar.

Read more

It turns out that the rumors of Michael Wolff‘s demise have been greatly exaggerated. PaidContent reports that Jimmy Finkelstein, the Chairman of Adweek’s parent company, Prometheus — and supposedly the main guy behind the push to fire Wolff — supports the controversial editor.

“Michael’s name is still on the masthead,” said Finkelstein. “He’s not being fired. If I were going to fire someone, it would not be in the pages of the magazine or a news site. We do have differences, but we’re working through them to continue to build Adweek.” Finkelstein even praised Wolff for helping boost Adweek.com’s traffic since the redesign.

So basically everything that was rumored to have happened ended up not being true. And Wolff had to sit through all of it. There really is no rest for the weary.

The New York Post has some more gossip regarding Michael Wolff and Adweek. Apparently one of the magazine’s investors, Jimmy Finkelstein, is leading the charge to get rid of Wolff, so much so that even Wolff is expecting to be fired soon. Finkelstein is looking to return Adweek to its advertising roots, so word is he’s looking directly at Ad Age — Adweek’s biggest rival — for Wolff’s replacement.

Wolff is still scheduled to speak at a number of events starting on Monday (which, cruelly, is his one year anniversary at Adweek) for Advertising Week, so perhaps he’ll be around for a little bit longer.

There’s also some buzz that Wolff might not be the only one getting the axe. Adweek’s Publisher, Erica Bartman, is getting flak for ad sales dropping after the redesign launched.

Happy Friday everyone?

Gawker is reporting that the “Michael Wolff is getting fired” rumors have finally come to fruition. Wolff is supposedly being replaced by someone more suited for Adweek’s original focus.

When Wolff joined Adweek — only a little under a year ago — he brought about sweeping changes. The magazine was redesigned and the website was revamped, all with more of a media centric outlook. In May, Wolff sat down with MediaBeat to discuss this new direction.

While those changes certainly brought plenty of attention to Adweek (and Wolff), they seem to have run their course at the company. We’re not worried about Wolff. We’re sure we’ll be hearing about him for as long as there’s media to report on.

A report from PricewaterhouseCoopers titled ”Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2011-2015,” indicates that print advertising sales will remain relatively flat through 2015 as readers continue to shift toward digital media. While that’s good news for digital sales – the report says digital advertising could reach $2.8 billion by 2015 – that means even less money being spent on print, which is where magazines make their money.

As Adweek points out, digital growth compounds the problem for magazines:

Underlying weakness in circulation will prevent publishers from growing print advertising at more than a modest pace. Competition from free sources, a weak economy, and decline in store visits has threatened newsstand and subscription sales. Celebrity and news magazines are particularly at risk because they trade in information that’s widely available for free online.

But let’s all remember that the report is just an estimate of what will happen. There’s still hope that magazines can maintain some print ad sales growth. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Here’s a look at what FishbowlNY stories made the most buzz this week.

1. White House Adds New Position to Deal with Unfavorable Online Media, May 23
2. People.com Editor Comes Out as Transgender, May 20
3. Did Someone Pay for the Leaked Sarah Palin Twitter Story? May 24
4. Women Like The Nook, Men, The iPad, May 23
5. USA Network Takes Over Entire New Yorker Issue, May 23
6. Fortune Magazine Honors the Most Powerful Women, May 25
7. Every Ebony Issue from 1959 to 2008 Now Online, May 20
8. Does Adweek Have a Problem with Female Editors? May 24
9. Disney to Withdraw ‘Seal Team 6′ Trademark Applications, May 25
10. 1050 ESPN’s Jared Max Opens Up on Being Gay, May 24

Keep up-to-date with the latest FishbowlNY news. Click here to sign-up for the FishbowlNY daily newsletter, bringing you our articles each afternoon directly to your inbox.

When Adweek came out with yet another article on how Tina Brown is difficult to work for, in what is starting to become the most tired media story du jour, it prompted Chris Rovzar at New York Magazine to ask, “What Is It With Adweek and Lady Editors?”

First, Arianna Huffington is accused of using a courtesan’s techniques. Then Elizabeth Spiers‘s appointment as editor of the Observer is compared to a bad marriage. And this week … Tina Brown.

To that we might also add, though she’s not an editor, New York’s Chief Digital Officer Rachel Sterne, who has had a couple of Adweek pieces calling her top position surprising considering a lack of substantive accomplishments.

In comments under Rovzar’s question, someone (from Adweek?) pointed to a nice piece they had on Jane Pratt and one on Pilar Guzman, but Rovzar rightly pointed out that those were Q&As, not analyses.

Of course, we don’t know if Michael Wolff, Adweek‘s editor, has a problem with the ladies. Maybe Rovzar’s theory is a stretch. But we’re hard-pressed to find any explanation why it came out with yet another story on how Tina Brown is tough to work for.

Ah, the rich. Are we so different? In many ways, yes. They buy a Lexus, we buy a bike. They buy a new iPhone, we remain faithful to our Razr. Yet perhaps we’re not as different as we think we are, because according to a new survey, even rich people fake their New Yorker enthusiasm.

Adweek explains that while 57 percent of people with an income of $250,000 or more report that The New Yorker is their favorite magazines, it doesn’t even make the top ten of the magazines that they actually read.

What do the wealthy consider worthy of their time? People and something called The Costco Connection. That’s right, rich people would rather read an article about 50 gallon jars of pickles than one found in The New Yorker.

Michael Wolff, editor of Adweek and veteran of the magazine industry, accompanied the announcement of Adweek‘s annual Hot List, not, as you might have thought, with bubbly optimism for the magazine business, but rather with an article lamenting the end of the industry’s Golden Age, and detailing what exactly has gone wrong.

There are many theories about the forces that undermined the business—even before the Internet came along—discount subs, which ruined a once strong revenue stream; conglomeration, which took the soul of the product; Tina Brown, who jacked up the cost of making the product; the Macintosh, which made every magazine look like every other; and the terrible recession of 1991…And then the Internet came along… And then the Great Recession.

But none of these reasons are why the magazine industry isn’t what it used to be — it’s because “copywriters and art directors fell out of love with magazines.” Wolff argues that we used to read magazines for all of the gorgeous ads, but as magazines themselves, the internet, television, and the world at large became a dizzying maelstrom of images, magazine display ads lost their lustre. And now they just don’t work like they used to.

He ends with the question: “How about getting people to read them?” Maybe with so many images about, consumers are now desperate to interact with words. Something about reading advertisements in magazines strikes us as shady. Which is why it might be a good idea.