Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

The Babe Went Out With the Bath Water

America’s Most Influential and Successful Book Publisher was Axed, and a Few Days Later, Her Company Ceased to Exist.

February 2007 By Denny Hatch
9
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

Even Bitches Have Feelings
Judith Regan is a walking cartoon, an equal-opportunity bigot—and hardly the only villain in the sordid O.J. publishing scandal.
Even after everything happened with the TV show and the book—after tabloid headlines excoriating her for consorting with the most notorious murderer of the past quarter-century; after Rupert Murdoch and her immediate superior at HarperCollins, Jane Friedman, let her twist in the wind; after even she herself had realized that it was best not to go forward with the book—she wasn’t going to abandon her diet. She went back to Los Angeles, to her life as a “hotel slut,” as she liked to call herself, in a twenties hotel on Sunset Boulevard, and tried to focus on what was important: moving on.
Vanessa Grigoriadis, New York Magazine, Feb. 5, 2007
Judith Regan, a 53-year-old self-proclaimed hottie, has been called by Vanity Fair “the Angriest Woman in Media.” She reportedly cussed out employees on a regular basis with the “f” word, the “s” word and, in doing so, routinely alluded to male and female anatomies—her own included—with various “c” words. According to one former editor, Regan went through 18 personal assistants in 2005.

“Say what you want about the fearless, foul-mouthed former publisher of ReganBooks,” wrote Steve Kettmann in the San Francisco Chronicle, “it would be hard to deny she has probably been the single most influential force in publishing over the past decade.”

She was also hugely successful. In 2001-2002, ReganBooks had 18 titles on the best-seller list. In August 2004, three of her titles were on the best-seller list at the same time—which was unheard of for a small publisher.

ReganBooks regularly brought in between $80 million and $120 million in annual revenue with 22 percent pre-tax earnings—in an industry that was lucky to eke out six percent. Her imprint was responsible for a reported 25 percent of the bottom line of HarperCollins, of which she was a subsidiary.

And she did it with just 40 employees. That’s a stunning $2 million to $3 million per employee—the equivalent of the #2 ranking in Fortune’s 2006 list of 100 Fastest Growing Small Companies.

Regan’s boss was Jane Friedman, CEO of HarperCollins, a division of News Corporation that is comprised of Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Television, DirecTV, 27 newspapers on three continents and a bunch of Web sites including myspace.com. In 2006, News Corporation had annual revenues of $25.3 billion.

But Judith Regan—with her $100 million revenue in the context of a $25 billion corporation—was in reality, a flea on the elephant.

So when Regan pissed off Jane Friedman and News Corporation’s Big Boss, Rupert Murdoch—I mean really pissed them off big time—they summarily fired her, shuttered her company and left a bunch of authors twisting in the wind.

It is the tale of an idiot savant—full of sound and fury—signifying much in terms of how big business deals with a rogue entrepreneur.

Modest Beginnings
Regan was the third of five children. She spent her childhood on a Massachusetts farm with her mother’s parents, who had emigrated from Sicily. At the age of 10, she moved to Bay Shore, a middle-class town in the middle of Long Island, where she graduated from Bay Shore High School at the top of her class and won a scholarship to Vassar College.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Jane Friedman has royally screwed the authors of all Judith Regan’s forthcoming books by shutting down ReganBooks. Instead of the cache and sex appeal of coming out under Judith Regan’s imprint, they are being shoveled into the massive maw of HarperCollins, which, together with its various subsidiaries worldwide, publishes 5,000 titles a year. Without the Regan mojo, these books and authors are likely to disappear without a trace.

* In researching this story, I wanted to find a list of books published by Judith Regan. The imprint has been stripped clean from the HarperCollins United States Web site.

* Towson University Political Science Professor Martha Joynt Kumar said, “If it hasn’t happened on television, it hasn’t happened.” Similarly, if a person or company does not exist on the Internet, it does not exist.

* Apparently, HarperCollins New York did not communicate this to HarperCollins Australia, which has available on its Web site a complete list of ReganBooks.

* No one has the right to abuse co-workers and get away with it.

* If an entrepreneur—no matter how brilliant—is known to be a loose cannon, it is probably a bad idea for that person to go to work for a large, publicly-held corporation in any capacity other than a freelance consultant.

* With an unpublished novel sitting in my computer and no agent and no contacts in the book-publishing world, I can only say this. If I had the choice of being published by Random House, Simon & Schuster, Doubleday, HarperCollins or the Judith Regan Redux Publishing Company operating from a garret in SoHo or a Watts slum, I would go with Regan in a heartbeat.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

ReganBooks Australia—A List of Titles
http://tinyurl.com/2mbc2v

Judith Regan’s Apologia
http://tinyurl.com/y5o73w

Friedman-Regan Contract for O.J. Simpson’s Book (PDF)
http://tinyurl.com/2p5c8s

Update on Hillary Clinton’s Run for the Presidency
The Jan. 30, 2007 edition of this e-zine was titled, “Hillary Clinton as a Sock Puppet.” This past week an astonishing YouTube clip surfaced showing Senator Hillary Clinton addressing the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting in Washington last week in which she proclaims:

The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy … alternative and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence.

This statement and this video clip will do to Senator Clinton’s candidacy what “I voted for it before I voted against it” did to John Kerry’s in 2004.

It will so frighten every American that owns a share of stock, that the Democrats would be fools to nominate her.

Hillary Clinton will not be elected president.

You heard it here first, folks.

Web Site Related to This Story

Hillary Clinton on the Subject of Oil Profits
http://tinyurl.com/2vtxnr
 
9

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Denny Hatch - Posted on February 08, 2007
To: Jim McQuillan

I am delighted that somebody disagreed with me!

I posted your comment immediately.

Hillary Clinton is giving new meaning to the concept of eminent domain. Suddenly your portfolio, your bank account, your investments are fair game if the gov?t thinks you are too successful.

On his Sunday night radio show, Matt Drugde suggested that the royalties from Hillary?s book be confiscated and given to charity.

Cheers.
Jim McQuillan - Posted on February 08, 2007
Re: Hillary. Couldn?t be further away from you and some of your readers on this one Denny. It looks like the US taxpayers are going to spend a $trillion in Iraq - not to mention the sacrifices of individuals in the US military AND the millions of Iraqi people with no homes, jobs, economy, limbs, life or family. Am I to believe then that from this shared investment and sacrifice it is okay for the oil companies to make such grossly inflated profits? While not a fan of government interference in business, for corporations to so gluttonously feast upon the misfortunes and sacrifices of others -- while gouging the buying public to boot -- all so that a few portfolios can be padded seems more like taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves than vice-versa. As these ill-gotten extra profits are the direct result of a war sanctioned by God (as the President has stated), I guess to ask ?What would Jesus do?? in this case we?d really have to ask his broker. This is certainly NOT a case of government taking money away from fair-made profits. And if it is, then maybe we should start re-spelling capitalism as C-O-L-O-N-I-A-L-I-S-M. Let?s hope these modern day robber barons don?t make so much that they can hold us hostage with the next energy source.
Christin Mowery - Posted on February 07, 2007
I think that Regan is brilliant in her business instincts, but should not have abused her employees the way she did. We all know how hard it is to find qualified, loyal employees, so what is the point of pushing them away with personal attacks? I understand that in this world it's hard enough to get respect as a woman, and if you play hard, most will consider you a b*tch, but you don't REALLY have to be one. Stand up for yourself, don't take anything from anyone, but you have to be respectable to be respected. Otherwise, they fear you, or the loss of their job, but never respect you. It's a fine line, easily crossed.

Hillary is satan. Enough said.
Erik Holden - Posted on February 07, 2007
I heard the other day that Hilary Clinton is also going after HarperCollins' profits to set up a fund to help all the victims of Judith Regan's emotional abuse. Seriously though, the huge majority of Americans that don't understand the ramifications of what Hilary said will think she is a saint for going after the bloated coffers of the big oil. Smart move on her part.
Jim - Posted on February 07, 2007
There?s no excuse for someone being a jerk in the workplace. None. Sure seems like Judith wasn?t just hard-driving?she was a cold, callous jerk. These types of people have such a toxic effect on the workplace, even if the person in question is an outstanding performer it?s almost never worth the tradeoffs. Some people excuse this sort of behavior on the grounds that ?it?s just what brilliant, successful entrepreneurs do?. I don?t buy it. The same could be said about, say, professional football coaches. But as both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith showed on Sunday, you don?t have to be Bill Parcells to lead a team to great success.

There?s an interesting article in Inc. this month about this very topic:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070201/managing-culture.html

As for whether I?d want her publishing my book, I?m just not sure. Perhaps the odds are so stacked against someone getting published successfully that it makes some sort of sense to make a ?deal with the devil?. But if you lie with dogs, don?t be surprised when you wake up with fleas.

As for Hillary, all I can say is, "Wow!"...
Bernie Malonson - Posted on February 06, 2007
Fascinating read, and lots of insights to go around. All I could think of as I read was the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" while reading. It is interesting you mentioned the loathing between Regan and Friedman, however as long as she was hitting homeruns, not a problem. However once the potential embarrassment comes up, she's toast. It will be interesting to see who snaps her up next.
David Garfinkel - Posted on February 06, 2007
Brilliant analysis, Denny. Let's start with, I'm Jewish. I wouldn't want to work for her. I wouldn't want her as a subordinate. But I sure as hell would like her to shape, direct, mold, promote and publish my next book. A client of mine recommended another outrageous literary phenomenon to me last week, Gene Simmons' "Sex Money and Kiss." Gene Simmons is a less vitriolic version of Judith Regan. I guess we in direct marketing sort of know from experience (or calluses, or tire tracks on our backs) that the conventional wisdom and the go-along get-along way of doing things does not for great things make. So here's a Utopian thought: What if there were a way to do what she did without all the emotional and workplace carnage?
Donna Lendvay - Posted on February 06, 2007
When a man has a tirade in an office - everyone looks the other way. Let a woman have a tirade and she's a bitch - even if she's bringing in $100 mil. When are people going to grow up - stop acting like babies with their feelings hurt all the time and just get their jobs done? I do think she was off-base on the OJ thing - but she had the right to publish it - we have the right to ignore it! And - where in the heck is Hilary coming from (I heard the speech on the radio.) wanting to "take away" profits? Aren't we all more than a little scared?? Can't we spell S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M?? In this day and age of entitlement, welfare, illegal immigration, and the dumbing down of America through our universities and public schools, she is a shoe in don't cha think!!
Brent D. Gardner - Posted on February 06, 2007
I'm a maverick. We're not often popular, but my enemies have told me to my face they respect me. They just don't do it when others are around. Regan lacked a filter in her brain. She said what many want to say, including the abuse of staff. It's not easy to find good help these days. Fortunately, I have a filter. Most of the time, it works, too.

I heard the Clinton clip, and it sent shivers down my spine. When O'Reilly was bashing Exxon, I went out and added shares to my account. I hope they keep making mega bank. I didn't buy to lose.

What Clinton said is akin to Marx or Lenin, wanting to take from the haves and give to the have-nots, in an effort to buy votes. The scary thing is that it's worked in the past. She's the epitome of Jefferson's prediction that the majority would vote themselves largesse of the public treasury.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Denny Hatch - Posted on February 08, 2007
To: Jim McQuillan

I am delighted that somebody disagreed with me!

I posted your comment immediately.

Hillary Clinton is giving new meaning to the concept of eminent domain. Suddenly your portfolio, your bank account, your investments are fair game if the gov?t thinks you are too successful.

On his Sunday night radio show, Matt Drugde suggested that the royalties from Hillary?s book be confiscated and given to charity.

Cheers.
Jim McQuillan - Posted on February 08, 2007
Re: Hillary. Couldn?t be further away from you and some of your readers on this one Denny. It looks like the US taxpayers are going to spend a $trillion in Iraq - not to mention the sacrifices of individuals in the US military AND the millions of Iraqi people with no homes, jobs, economy, limbs, life or family. Am I to believe then that from this shared investment and sacrifice it is okay for the oil companies to make such grossly inflated profits? While not a fan of government interference in business, for corporations to so gluttonously feast upon the misfortunes and sacrifices of others -- while gouging the buying public to boot -- all so that a few portfolios can be padded seems more like taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves than vice-versa. As these ill-gotten extra profits are the direct result of a war sanctioned by God (as the President has stated), I guess to ask ?What would Jesus do?? in this case we?d really have to ask his broker. This is certainly NOT a case of government taking money away from fair-made profits. And if it is, then maybe we should start re-spelling capitalism as C-O-L-O-N-I-A-L-I-S-M. Let?s hope these modern day robber barons don?t make so much that they can hold us hostage with the next energy source.
Christin Mowery - Posted on February 07, 2007
I think that Regan is brilliant in her business instincts, but should not have abused her employees the way she did. We all know how hard it is to find qualified, loyal employees, so what is the point of pushing them away with personal attacks? I understand that in this world it's hard enough to get respect as a woman, and if you play hard, most will consider you a b*tch, but you don't REALLY have to be one. Stand up for yourself, don't take anything from anyone, but you have to be respectable to be respected. Otherwise, they fear you, or the loss of their job, but never respect you. It's a fine line, easily crossed.

Hillary is satan. Enough said.
Erik Holden - Posted on February 07, 2007
I heard the other day that Hilary Clinton is also going after HarperCollins' profits to set up a fund to help all the victims of Judith Regan's emotional abuse. Seriously though, the huge majority of Americans that don't understand the ramifications of what Hilary said will think she is a saint for going after the bloated coffers of the big oil. Smart move on her part.
Jim - Posted on February 07, 2007
There?s no excuse for someone being a jerk in the workplace. None. Sure seems like Judith wasn?t just hard-driving?she was a cold, callous jerk. These types of people have such a toxic effect on the workplace, even if the person in question is an outstanding performer it?s almost never worth the tradeoffs. Some people excuse this sort of behavior on the grounds that ?it?s just what brilliant, successful entrepreneurs do?. I don?t buy it. The same could be said about, say, professional football coaches. But as both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith showed on Sunday, you don?t have to be Bill Parcells to lead a team to great success.

There?s an interesting article in Inc. this month about this very topic:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070201/managing-culture.html

As for whether I?d want her publishing my book, I?m just not sure. Perhaps the odds are so stacked against someone getting published successfully that it makes some sort of sense to make a ?deal with the devil?. But if you lie with dogs, don?t be surprised when you wake up with fleas.

As for Hillary, all I can say is, "Wow!"...
Bernie Malonson - Posted on February 06, 2007
Fascinating read, and lots of insights to go around. All I could think of as I read was the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" while reading. It is interesting you mentioned the loathing between Regan and Friedman, however as long as she was hitting homeruns, not a problem. However once the potential embarrassment comes up, she's toast. It will be interesting to see who snaps her up next.
David Garfinkel - Posted on February 06, 2007
Brilliant analysis, Denny. Let's start with, I'm Jewish. I wouldn't want to work for her. I wouldn't want her as a subordinate. But I sure as hell would like her to shape, direct, mold, promote and publish my next book. A client of mine recommended another outrageous literary phenomenon to me last week, Gene Simmons' "Sex Money and Kiss." Gene Simmons is a less vitriolic version of Judith Regan. I guess we in direct marketing sort of know from experience (or calluses, or tire tracks on our backs) that the conventional wisdom and the go-along get-along way of doing things does not for great things make. So here's a Utopian thought: What if there were a way to do what she did without all the emotional and workplace carnage?
Donna Lendvay - Posted on February 06, 2007
When a man has a tirade in an office - everyone looks the other way. Let a woman have a tirade and she's a bitch - even if she's bringing in $100 mil. When are people going to grow up - stop acting like babies with their feelings hurt all the time and just get their jobs done? I do think she was off-base on the OJ thing - but she had the right to publish it - we have the right to ignore it! And - where in the heck is Hilary coming from (I heard the speech on the radio.) wanting to "take away" profits? Aren't we all more than a little scared?? Can't we spell S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M?? In this day and age of entitlement, welfare, illegal immigration, and the dumbing down of America through our universities and public schools, she is a shoe in don't cha think!!
Brent D. Gardner - Posted on February 06, 2007
I'm a maverick. We're not often popular, but my enemies have told me to my face they respect me. They just don't do it when others are around. Regan lacked a filter in her brain. She said what many want to say, including the abuse of staff. It's not easy to find good help these days. Fortunately, I have a filter. Most of the time, it works, too.

I heard the Clinton clip, and it sent shivers down my spine. When O'Reilly was bashing Exxon, I went out and added shares to my account. I hope they keep making mega bank. I didn't buy to lose.

What Clinton said is akin to Marx or Lenin, wanting to take from the haves and give to the have-nots, in an effort to buy votes. The scary thing is that it's worked in the past. She's the epitome of Jefferson's prediction that the majority would vote themselves largesse of the public treasury.