Nice belt, Rachael Ray

Here's a hearty helping of depression from James Ledbetter's piece called "Why Martha Stewart's Company is Doomed" @ Slate.com:

"The hard truth is that demand for Martha Stewart in all forms—magazines, books, TV shows, Web sites, and stuff—has passed its peak. You can feel it in the culture, where Rachel Ray is today's go-to domestic goddess."

By which you mean that the woman who named her company Yum-O and brought the terms "EVOO" and "garbage bowl" into the zeitgeist, is now in charge? I reject! Say what you will about Martha's uptight personality, overly persnickety aesthetic, and awkward hosting style, but she and her people have taste and know how to put a magazine together with gravitas. Rachael Ray doesn't even know what gravitas means.

And the thing is, I feel really guilty, because I am part of that problem - I let my MSL subscription run out last year (after, like, 10 years probably - I would have to go check in my white antique cabinet of secretly hoarded magazines) because I had a giant stack that I never got around to reading, much less even looking through. But when I did read them, I always found many, many things that inspired me, even if my taste has leaned more towards the less pristine brand of vintage modern that Martha's been selling all these years.

And I religiously bought the Weddings magazines for years, even when I was on my mission (I packed them at Grandma M's) so I wouldn't miss even one. But I've gotten less obsessed with weddings in general lately, so I haven't dropped my $6 for one of the quarterly issues for at least 3 quarters.

Financial writers make these kinds of predictions about companies all the time, and sometimes they are right on, and sometimes they are alarmist. It seems likely that Martha's brand will persist in some form for years to come, but to what sacrifice, I ask? It's hard for me to let something like Martha Stewart go, when she - it, the whole package - has been such a defining part of my personal style evolution.