Marie O'Riordan

Like the buxom Nubian sentries who guard it, the solid gold portcullis that affords entry into the London offices of glossy women’s magazine Marie Claire is a figment of my imagination. In its place is a nondescript door on a nondescript London street that opens to reveal a bored security man sitting in a pokey cubby hole.

He directs me to the main office where, with crushing disappointment, it soon becomes apparent that every single one of the opulent trappings I’d expected to find in such a place are conspicuous by their absence. There are no topless supermodels cavorting in a bubbling Jacuzzi and no strung-out movie stars or musicians snorting cocaine off the bare buttocks of bronzed high-class Brazilian hookers.

Indeed, in the expansive and untidy open-plan office that is the Marie Claire nerve centre, even the prevailing sounds are not those of shrieking round-the-clock orgasm coming from flunkies experimenting with the latest Tantric technique or sex-toy, but ringing telephones and the brisk tip-tapping of slender female fingertips on PC keyboards. As magazine offices go, it’s disappointingly like any other one I’ve ever been in. What does set it apart, however, is the number of stunning women on view compared to the number of stunning men: lots and… well, just me.

I’m here to interview Marie O’Riordan, a friendly Dubliner who has edited the UK edition of one of the world’s biggest-selling magazines since last May. In her late thirties or early forties, she’s blonde, attractive, dressed from head to toe in black and a former employee of Sun Alliance in Dublin. Having sensibly decided that a life spent festering in the insurance trade was no life at all, she put herself through college and emerged from UCD with an Arts degree. Her next port of call was London, where she has steadily ascended the publishing ladder ever since.

Barry Glendenning: How would you describe Marie Claire to someone who’s never seen or read it?

Marie O’Riordan: Well, we call it the grown-up glossy and we tend to describe it as the intelligent woman’s read. It used to be branded as “the only glossy with brains” but we think that’s a bit patronising to women.

We tend to cover a broader range of features than other magazines. Quite a lot of magazines are dedicated just to fashion, like Elle and Vogue, and then Cosmo has a reputation for being the magazine that’s synonymous with sex. Marie Claire tends to cover quite a lot of reportage, as well as covering fashion and beauty and real-life sex features as well. Our unique selling point is that we do these reportage stories, which gives us our so-called “intelligent” branding.

BG: Could that be construed as a token nod to serious journalism?

MO: I think it could be, yeah. When I took over last May I thought that was a bit patronising to women. I don’t think women like to be described as “women with brains” – because that almost implies that most women don’t have any brains. But I think the idea of the magazine being a bit more substantial than our competitors is fair enough. The assumption is that women who read Marie Claire have gone to university and read a broad range of media. We like to think of it as a magazine for women who dash about the world as a larger place, rather than being confined to their own residential area.

BG: Is most of your time taken up with number-crunching or do you deal more with editorial?

MO: There’s very little number crunching, thank God. There’s quite a lot of editing, which involves managing a team of extremely talented people. My role is that of Jack-of-all-trades who hires people to head up various departments: features director, fashion director, beauty director, creative director… and then I just try and manage all of those egos in as pleasant a way as possible.

The rest of my time is spent doing a lot of external stuff with advertisers or with publicists. You probably know yourself how long it can take to nail down a celebrity or an exclusive interview.

We also do quite a lot of work with high profile charities so we spend quite a lot of time trying to network Oxfam or Action Aid, just to build up a relationship with those people so we can work on stories together. Then the advertising side of it is all about meeting various designers and the like… Mr Lancôme and Mr Saint Laurent, and building up relationships with them because the fashion element of the magazine is very important.

Everything you’ve probably heard about international fashion shows is true – all us glossy editors sit in the front row being competitive and bitchy with each other.

BG: My preconception is that everyone in this office also hates each other and bitches incessantly. Am I correct?

MO: Well, my preconception of women’s magazines probably was that as well, and I have worked on magazines where the egos are so big that all the editor does is sort out the spats. Now, you’re going to think I’m just saying this, but this office is surprisingly ego free. I’m not just saying that because I’m the editor, but I find everyone here quite dedicated and quite normal. They come in, they work hard and then most of them go home to their husbands and babies every day and aren’t very drama queenish at all. It’s quite a congenial atmosphere and you’ll already have noticed that it’s not very glamourous. People who visit the office here are always terribly disappointed because they want to come in and see us quaffing champagne, eating canapés and snorting cocaine. When they see that it’s all a bit of a dump they feel let down.

BG: In an interview in the Irish Times you said you were glad to be here because there are no corporate politics. Surely showbiz politics are far more frivolous and petty.

MO: Well, yeah, it is a bit of a frying pan and fire situation, although I still find it more entertaining, even if it drives me round the bend. Sometimes I’m sitting here at the end of my day, it’s 10am LA time and I’m dealing with some publicist over there, and their job, although they’re called publicists, is to actually not get their star any publicity. So you tend to ring up with a request saying: “Will you release this picture of Catherine Zeta Jones or Nicole Kidman or whoever?” and they say no, because that person isn’t publicising anything at that particular time. Then if you do get them, they want to control the shoot and the interview and they want copy approval and picture approval. It drives me mad, but I have to continue to be charming in order to get the story. It is very, very frustrating but it’s still more interesting than corporate politics, in my opinion.

BG: Do you give copy approval to the celebrities you interview?

MO: No we don’t. That’s something we’ve resisted. We’ll often give publicists a list of recommended writers and they trust Marie Claire. We’re seen as the non-sensationalist brand, I think, and we don’t stitch people up. If we feature a celebrity we assume that the reader is interested in or likes this person. We’re quite unbitchy as a magazine, so I think we have a slightly easier time than other publications when it comes to dealing with publicists. We also have access to great photographers and the star likes that because they know they’re going to look beautiful, or handsome.

BG: Your February 2002 issue has Naomi Campbell on the cover and an interview with her inside. Did she get copy approval?

MO: No, absolutely not. Why do you say that – did you think it was anodyne?

BG: Yes. I thought it was rubbish, to be honest.

MO: Really? Why, did you think it was too gentle?

BG: It was incredibly sycophantic and my first impression was that she either had copy approval or else the journalist, Adrian Deevoy, was intimidated by her.

MO: Well, all I can say to you is that you probably don’t read too many celebrity interviews anymore because, believe me, that is one of the harder hitting examples. If you think that’s obsequious . . . oh dear.

BG: How about this for an extract: “She has a feline grace and an innate elegance that makes you immediately understand why she photographs so well. That and her undeniable beauty. Sometimes as she talks, you catch yourself marveling at her lips and how they move as if they were independent life forms. Or, as she attempts to explain her new-found inner tranquility, you can’t help but speculate as to the exact colour of her eyes. Honey? Toffee? Golden syrup? Caramel fudge? Whatever, they look good enough to eat.” That isn’t hard-hitting, that’s sick-making.

MO: [Laughs] Okay, I mean it does sound it when you read it out of context but I guess that is how men react to Naomi Campbell. I guess he [Adrian Deevoy] just reacted in a very heterosexual male way to meeting her and you’d probably be the exact same.

BG: She’s just a model.

MO: That’s what you say now! Look, arguably that interview is sycophantic, but there was something vaguely amusing about it and something vaguely interesting about how Naomi flays all men, including journalists.

BG: But there were so many issues he didn’t address: Naomi attending Narcotics Anonymous; the hypocrisy of Naomi saying she doesn’t want to hide “the real me” while simultaneously employing a PR who tells journalists what they may or may not ask her; her u-turn on fur…

MO: Believe me, that is not unusual. Virtually every single celebrity we have anything to do with, we don’t deal directly with. The only time we’ve ever had a direct relationship with anyone was with Bob Geldof. He wanted to talk about his album and he was unbelievably frank and up front, but that’s because he’s a member of the media. But also, he chose Marie Claire because he felt it was a magazine with integrity and he felt it wouldn’t do too much sensationalist stuff. So, the Naomi Campbell thing is just par for the course. I could go around getting all angry and frustrated about it but there’s very little I can do about it. I’m really used to it now.

BG: If money and access were no object, what would your dream issue be?

MO: Well I’m afraid it is always celebrities. I think at the moment my dream cover would be to take a chance with trying to get an exclusive cover with David Beckham for the World Cup issue. Women’s magazines hardly ever do men on their cover and men’s magazines exclusively have women on the cover.

I kind of think, for some reason, he is the contemporary icon in this country because of his footballing genius and because people are obsessed with him and Victoria. After that, it is just your A-list celebrity who is doing a movie at that time. I would have wanted an exclusive with Kate Winslet for Iris or Nicole Kidman for Moulin Rouge, which we did get.

Ultimately it all boils down to “our people” talking to “their people” and how they get along.

BG: Speaking of “people”, is there anyone whose handlers you steadfastly have nothing to do with?

MO: I can’t really uncover any great scandal for you, I’m afraid. I haven’t fallen out with anyone yet.

BG: Someone must have pissed you off. Who’s a complete bitch?

MO: All the American publicists are really difficult. I mean, really difficult, but as I said before, you have to accept it because they hold the balance of power. As for celebrities, you don’t tend to find out who the bitches are, or who’s difficult because they all hire people to be difficult on their behalf. However, I fully believe it’s going to turn full circle and come back to the magazines.

BG: But there’s so few A-list celebrities and so many magazines, surely they can take their pick?

MO: Yes, but I think the economy is changing and quite a lot of magazines have closed in the last six months. I think that will continue and maybe the public will get fed up with the kind of journalism you alluded to earlier, or they’ll get tired of seeing the same people on the same covers. I dunno, I think something will happen to change it. I don’t know what, exactly, but I wish I did.

Naomi Campbell is a celebrity but she’s still ultimately a model, which is what fashion magazines have always had on their cover. You didn’t enjoy that interview with her and only time will tell if that issue sells as well as any other. I’d be confident, though, that it will sell as much as an issue with Catherine Zeta Jones. I do feel that our reader buys Marie Claire for things other than the celebrity cover.

BG: Who was on the cover of your biggest-selling issue?

MO: Weirdly enough, it was the Corrs, which is interesting for the Hotpress reader. I should add that it did have a free bag with it, although we’ve given away freebies with other celebrity covers that haven’t sold as well.

BG: Was Jim Corr on the cover?

MO: No.

BG: You have a feature in the current issue about female victims of last year’s Indian earthquake. Is it obscene running it in a magazine that also advertises £440 Gucci handbags?

MO: Not really. The Guardian or any other national newspaper has fashion advertising but still covers stories like that. So no, not in this case, I didn’t think there was anything tasteless about it.

The reason a Marie Claire reader buys Marie Claire is because she wants to be reminded that there is more to life than Gucci handbags. She knows Gucci handbags exist and she may even have a Gucci handbag, but she likes the part of Marie Claire that says there are other things in life apart from Posh Spice.

We try not to cover developing world stories in a patronising way by going “Oh dear, look at those poor people in India or Africa.” We try and celebrate what they are proud of. In the March issue we have a feature on women in Cuba, and I think the point of the piece is that while they have nothing compared to us in terms of material wealth, they probably have a lot more than us in terms of spiritual connection or neighbourliness. I don’t think you’ll feel quite so smug when you read those features.

I think it would be awful if you did think it was obscene because on some level, that would be patronising the Indian woman that we were interviewing. I don’t think she regards herself as being less well off.

BG: But she can’t walk and live in a shack – of course she’s less well off.

MO: We deal with issues in this magazine in a way that other magazines don’t. I think we tell our reader that it isn’t all fluffy and gorgeous in the world. But rather than just go ‘Poor people in Africa’, we do try and go ‘Well actually, they’re pretty damn happy on some level that we might not even think about’. I think it’s patronising just to show readers a load of people who are all hungry and dying.

BG: I disagree. I think it’s another token nod. The rich successful independent woman you spoke of earlier is going to flip through the magazine and think: “There’s Naomi Campbell mithering on about her inner tranquility, there’s a homeless Indian woman who’s paralysed from the waist down and there’s a Gucci handbag that retails at £440.” It’s obscene.

MO: Well our sales figures would suggest that you’re wrong. Stories like that are always the thing that have set us apart from Cosmo and although we’ve been number two to them for a long, long time, the difference in sales is only about 50,000 copies, which is not very much.

We sell twice as much as Vogue or Elle and that would suggest that the reader has a curiosity about all sorts of places in the world. She doesn’t see that being interested in fashion precludes her from being interested in places around the world other than Britain or America or Celebrity land.

I don’t see the contradiction although I’m challenged on it all the time. It’s a cliché to be challenged on it but this is the reason why people buy Marie Claire instead of Vogue or Elle. I dunno, maybe it just makes people feel better, but it is the reason they buy it.

BG: I have this vision of women stopping at the Indian earthquake article and going “Oh look, poor people, how quaint!”, before moving swiftly along.

MO: [Laughs] Well it would be obscene if we were all as cynical as you obviously are, but we’re not. We celebrate the cultures of non-Western women. We celebrate Western culture but we show the reader the way other women live and we show that they have a pretty good time too. We try not to make it seem that just because it isn’t the western world it isn’t as exciting or stimulating. These people define wealth in a different way than we do, but I think often the message is that they’re quite a lot better off on some levels.

BG: Do you get a lot of free stuff?

MO: Designers tend to send me a lot of free stuff at Christmas time, which I try very hard to distribute around the office and to deserving members of my family.

BG: That must be difficult.

MO: Mmm, yes. I actually tend to get quite a lot of handbags, I must say. I get more handbags than I could ever use.

BG: How many handbags do you have in your home?

MO: I actually don’t have that many because I really do tend to share them out with people in the office. It’s not as if everything I’m wearing is free. In fact, nothing I’m wearing is free. You tend to feel very self-conscious about your appearance in this world, so I think I shop more carefully than I did before I had this job. That’s very expensive, and a bit of a downside. I don’t have a personal dresser or a dress allowance.

BG: I would have thought you’d get a clothing allowance.

MO: Well no, because like you, everyone assumes I get everything for free. At the end of the day I am just a working girl. A lot of fashion editors wear a lot of black like I am today, because that tends to be more anonymous.

BG: Would you have any qualms about taking freebies? Is there any such thing as a free Gucci handbag?

MO: No, there is no such thing as a free Gucci handbag. I don’t send things back or refuse to accept them, because this business is all about relationships. It’s important, unfortunately, because I’m a realist and a pragmatist, for me to have a good relationship with Mr Galliano, or whoever it is that’s sending in free stuff. I have to do a lot of lunches with people like that and while they’re not the most exciting times of my life, I accept that they’re a constituent of my audience that I have to have a relationship with. As a commercial editor working in a commercial world I just accept that. It’s no less fun than dealing with an LA publicist, it’s just another aspect of the job.

BG: Your Real People features where, in this month’s issue, a group of women talk very frankly about their sex lives… how real are they, exactly?

MO: They’re completely real! I mean, most of the people are photographed and have their name, age and profession printed alongside. That’s the thing that surprises me most in this job – people’s desire to have their picture in a magazine. People really will go into print and say the most extraordinary things.

BG: Where do you find them?

MO: Well, there are certain journalists who are just very good at networking with a bunch of people. There is always somebody who knows somebody. The Internet can be very useful for that kind of thing.

BG: Most women’s glossies seem to be a bit sexist. The attitude seems to be: “We’re so clever and men are all a bit dim.” Is that the policy here?

MO: I certainly hope that wouldn’t be the attitude you’d get from us. I think we would regard our sexual politics as quite liberated. We would be of the opinion that the sexes have quite a lot of respect for one another. We assume that women have healthy relationships with men – sexual and non-sexual. I think what brings Marie Claire readers together is their attitude to life. In Marie Claire-world, sexism is not good.

I really do hope you don’t think that we’re smug and that we think men are dim because we consciously strive not to be. Other women’s magazines have that attitude and I personally hate those magazines. We certainly don’t subscribe to the All Men Are Bastards school of publishing.

BG: What do you think of the attitudes towards women of lad magazines like FHM and Loaded, to name just two?

MO: They’ve been phenomenally successful but, sadly, I think they tend to define women in a more two-dimensional way than women’s magazines define men. Having said that, I agree with your argument when you say that some women’s magazines are pretty horrible to men as well.

So, where they perpetuate the war of the sexes I kind of despise them and I do think their covers are very sexist. It’s basically “Tits out for the boys!”. Women’s magazine’s tend to celebrate other women, but men’s magazines don’t tend to celebrate other men. At least not on their covers anyway, because that’s reserved for tits and ass. It’s a bit sad.

BG: In this month’s Marie Claire feature, entitled “Is She Really Going Out With Him?” we hear from a woman who got treated very badly by a – clearly psychotic – bully who worked in advertising. By her own admission, she fell for him because she was initially attracted to his glamorous lifestyle. I put it to you that she deserved all she got for having her head turned by such a fatuous prick.

MO: You see, I would put it to you, once again, that you’re being really harsh, cynical and judgmental. Women’s magazines tend to acknowledge human frailty and a lot of women, in their lives, have been attracted to crap men.

BG: There’s lots of them about.

MO: There are, and I think this feature was making the point that just because a woman has been going out with a crap man it isn’t the end of the world. We would never say she had it coming, like you seem to think. On the contrary, we would say that we’ve all been there and that if you read this you’ll soon realise that you’re not alone. It’s all about empathy, not judging.

BG: I would find it very hard to empathise with somebody who’s that dim.

MO: [Laughs] You’re far too judgmental. I don’t think she was dim. It’s all about acceptance of human frailty and weakness.

BG: Finally, what do women want?

MO: They want exactly the same things men want. They want to be happy, they want to be loved, they want a bit of glamour in their lives, they want a bit of independence, they want a good relationship with their women friends, they want a good relationship with their families. To be honest, it’s no great mystery: women want a good time.