Ben Goldhirsh is the 26-year-old founder and owner of Good magazine, a Los Angeles-based publication which will debut in September and will, according to its Web site, strive to embrace “this generation’s merger of capitalism and idealism.” His father, Bernie Goldhirsh, was the founder and owner of Inc. magazine. According to the Wall Street Journal, Good is being financed initially with $2.5 million of Goldhirsh’s inheritance money.
Felix Gillette: Why focus on people doing good? Why not start a magazine called Bad?
Ben Goldhirsh: We aren’t focused solely on good. When we really define the content, we say we’re covering the ideas, innovations, people, businesses affecting change for good or bad. What we’re trying to do is to create a platform for the conversation about what matters, what’s relevant, what’s good. I personally think “bad” is equally relevant.
FG: Did you go through a bunch of synonyms for good — say, “decent,” “respectable,” “upright,” “moral,” “virtuous” — before you settled on the name Good?
BG: No. There’s only one word that we ever thought about.
FG: Will the tone of the magazine be as earnest at its name?
BG: That’s kind of an interesting question, because that’s a subjective definition of the word. For us, we’re really trying to expand the definition of “good.” We see “good” as far broader than its current position. That’s one of the frustrations from which this magazine is born. How did “good” get soft? How is “do-gooder” a pejorative? This is about giving “good” teeth.
We look at an analog like Wired, which helped elevate technology from the esoteric to the relevant — really gave that topic some sex. We think Good exists in a similar space. We think “good” is impressive. We think it does have pop.
FG: An edgy Good?
BG: Certainly, you could say this is going to have some edgy content.
FG: I think you’re the only 26-year-old I know who is starting a print magazine. Why not just start a Web site like everyone else?
BG: I should also tell you that we’re going into the pay phone business. I’m kidding. We all talked about it a lot, and went over the numbers, and tried to make sense of it. There’s a lot of logic behind a Web magazine. But there’s also a real beauty in having a tangible product. By no means are we shorting the Web. We see the future as the Internet. I think eventually this magazine will really almost be like one of the better newsletters for this community of people that gives a damn. That can be serviced on the Web, with events, with opportunities, with career stuff, with more of a MySpace framework.
FG: What magazines have influenced your editorial sensibility?
BG: I’d say Esquire of decades past. Rolling Stone of decades past. Wired. There’s something about those old Esquires. We’ve got a bunch of them lying around. They were digging into interesting issues. They were doing it in a way that really catered to the sensibility of the time. I think that’s missing right now. A lot of us here, we feel like we’re working too hard to find the stimuli we want to catalyze the sort of thoughts we wish to have. Hopefully this magazine can kind of help package material that’ll help with that.
FG: Do you have any background in editing, reporting, or journalism?
BG: I have no background in journalism or editing. I worked at Inc. magazine growing up. My father published that. So I grew up in the magazine business. So I don’t have any particular skills. I’m also not putting those responsibilities on my shoulders. All the kids that work here, for their age, they have extensive experience.
FG: Is there anything that you will carry over from the Inc. tradition?