Why 'Jane' Folded: Think Its Readers Were Just Too Poor, Pissy, And Devoid of Aspirations?Moe7/09/07 4:25pmFiled to: r.i.p. janeBrandon HolleyTopFeatureGawker132EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalinkPossibly the weirdest thing about writing about Jane folding today was finding out that one of our most popular posts ever, on the most recent issue featuring the quirktacular Zooey Deschanel, was one of our most popular posts in history. We don't really have the technical know-how to figure out why this is or what it means, but since this is a blog and not a doctoral thesis here we're going to venture that it indicates that, you know what? There was a market for what those people did, which was, at its most basic: cater to twentysomething women. So why didn't more advertisers buy into it? A big clue might lie in the conflict between the lineup of advertisers who did buy into the latest issue — Midol! AZO homeopathic urinary tract medication! Valtrex! Harley-Davidson? — and the message of editor-in-chief Brandon Holley's final editor's letter:ShareTweet Kinja is in read-only mode. We are working to restore service.