Do you think the mag may have thought through the economics before making the decision and liked the maths?Probably a bad move (long term) putting him on the cover. In the short term it will bring in a lot more consumers, most of whom align with CK and will want to show support and keep it as a memento. On the other side, many existing customers won't buy it but more importantly may choose to cancel their subscription. So it becomes a question of will you have more bandwagon jumpers getting on or off? Since on means taking an active step to pay more going forward, whereas off means saving money, I suspect more will leave than join. Also, many who buy will just buy the one issue vs many who will cancel their entire subscription.
So short term win in terms of publicity (who knew GQ was still publishing hard copy??) but long term loss in terms of subscribers.
For one thing, it gives a "men's fashion magazine" an attempt at political street cred with the young, urban audience. How many middle-aged, White, small town "all American patriots" actually buy GQ??!! Probably none. It's a totally different demographic. Those old guys probably think of GQ as a "gay magazine"!
I'm sure that cover was focus-grouped to death before management made the choice.