Zoo Weekly features editor

Zoo Weekly is looking for a features editor.

I check out the online job ads every couple of weeks. A mentor once recommended the practice “so you can find out if your job has been advertised”.

In the dog-eat-dog newspaper world it seemed like good advice. Plus you get to know the industry gossip of who’s been given the flick, who’s moved on, etc.

The advert on Seek says:

“Zoo Weekly, Australia’s biggest selling men’s magazine is looking for a talented Features Editor.

A working knowledge of pop culture would be an advantage, as would experience on a magazine. Apply with full CV and five ideas you think would make Zoo even better.”

Search for “Zoo magazine” on Google and it comes up as the first result. The description listed under the title reads: “Weird, magazine, sick, entertainment, girls, football, lists, zoo, weekly, jokes, snapshots, banter, quizzes, games.”

Those descriptions are normally chosen by the webmaster through meta tags. In this case it gives an interesting summary of how the Zoo people see themselves.

I can “turn around sparkling copy at breathless speed” and I think I know what makes young blokes tick.

I can write with humor when suitably inspired, and it’s easier when you can make things up. I possibly fall down though on “a working knowledge of pop culture”.

I haven’t watched commercial television this year, except for the AFL grand final, and my only cinema visit in 12 months was to see the travelling St Kilda Film Festival. I have no idea what my kids are listening to, but it sounds terrible.

I like the job ad’s call to “apply with full CV and five ideas you think would make Zoo even better”.

The publishers might pick up some good ideas, even from the unsuccessful applicants.

The Zoo formula looks pretty simple to me though. The biggest decision each week seems to be “boobs or bums” on the front, “blond or brunette”?