Mediacheck

Lady Mags Hit Hard Times

Blame their prettier-than-thou bullying and rise of the fashion blog, not the recession.

By Vanessa Richmond, 23 Jul 2009, TheTyee.ca

vogue.jpg

Vogue September edition: 798 pages!

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

Lady mags are in trouble. Usually, the mags gorge on ads for their September issues, often inches thick, and by far the biggest of the year. The fall issues' fat revenues, bursting at the seams, usually carry them through the lean months after Christmas. But plummeting ad sales combined with lower circulation rates mean quite a few won't have enough reserves to make it through the hibernation.

Elle's ad pages for September are down 21 per cent, Harper's Bazaar 25 per cent, Vanity Fair 27 per cent, W, 53 per cent, and Vogue, 36 per cent.

Big surprise. Lady mags are dinosaurs. While many in the industry are pointing bejeweled fingers at the decline of (old) media (of which lady mags are pillars), the recession and corresponding lack of interest in over-consuming, and other corporate hoo-ha, lady mags' decreasing power is much because their former readers just want to sit at a different lunch table now.

And since fashion mags aren't the queens of the hallways anymore, it's no surprise that many of those former queens are trying to give themselves a quick makeover, to show they're not with the drowning clique.

Makeover case in point

Like Liz Jones, a former lady mag editrix who this week tries to distance herself from her old friends. She writes in The Daily Mail about why even though she sat at the helm of one of the biggies, Marie Claire, and, "personally, read Vogue for over three decades as though it were scripture," as one Salon writer quipped, she has since decided to call off the affair.

The former glossy queen says lady mags are "patronizing, fake, and pointless." No kidding. But she says it wasn't always this way. She says the main problem is that with circulation down, magazines have become too reliant on advertisers. So in order to secure precious ad dollars in the competitive environment, they write increasingly sycophantic editorials about (often untested) beauty products and (overpriced, irrelevant) clothing labels, and have therefore lost credibility with their readers.

Her conclusion is that "the magazines, our magazines, have got to start being on our side again."

But that's not the main way lady mags haven't been on "our" side (if you agree Jones is with "us").

I'm pretty. You're ugly. Buy this.

Fashion magazines are kind of about clothes and beauty products and consumption. But have always also been about power and a kind of bullying. Fashion magazines are often aspirational in nature, featuring clothes and a lifestyle that most readers can never gain access to. Many did and do patronize and talk down to their readers.

A former model wrote a poignant essay this week about why she just quit the industry. Jenna Sauers writes, "I often reflected on the fact that studies show that women, after looking at fashion magazines -- full of pictures of girls very much like me, sometimes even pictures of me -- feel bad about themselves. I also often wondered why it is, given this fact, that we buy the magazines again next month."

The glossies have always been about making their readers feel bad. The fix, of course, is buying the stuff the mags are pushing.

Long live fashion

There's lots written about how the recession has taken fashion off the radar. But the women I know haven't lost interest in clothes or the politics of appearance -- quite the opposite. Sure, it's a love-hate relationship, and full of problems. But while it would make the morning routine easier, most women I know aren't about to start wearing burlap sacks.

Fashion, for better or worse, is a mainstay of female culture. And while fur and jewels and over-consumption are very much out of vogue, it's hard to imagine that the culture of clothing will become extinct anytime soon. In fact, lately I've read even more articles about style and fashion than in the past (Michelle Obama alone has inspired thousands of pieces), and seen style and fashion blogs proliferate.

Jones herself points out that women are now turning to blogs partly because blogs offer critical information, not tied to advertising dollars. And the many other fashion blog readers I know like that blogs are more accessible, tend to consider the readers friends instead of sheep to be lead, and feature photos of real people on the street or of the blogger him or herself.

The women I talk to aren't tired of fashion, just tired of the fashion glossies and their prettier-than-thou bullying, and tuning into other sources instead.

The queen is dead. Long live the queen. [Tyee]

Tyee contributing editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media.

20 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Just me

    2 years ago

    Old news, and wrong

    This simplistic view of fashion magazines is old and perhaps only accurate as a reflection of the writer's mind. I guess she knows whether reader self-loathing is real or imagined. Surely it is some of column A, some of column B, depending on the reader.

    Magazine circulations are down on purpose, as magazines search for audiences finite enough to provide a real group identity. The mass magazine died with the advent of TV. Since the late 60s if not sooner, the name of the game in all media has been narrowcasting - a proliferation of tightly focused media outlets, each aimed at a narrow audience. Think of the 500-channel TV universe. Then look again at the 15,000-20,000 magazines published in North America, almost all of which are facing the same ad recession that has hit women's magazines.

    The collapse of ad revenue is being felt across all traditional media and most digital media. Did the Rocky Mountain News et al go down because they were offering women outdated fashion advice? No.

    All media rely on the giant subsidy of advertising, and it is a sad fact that in every recession ad budgets are among the first to be cut because they are the easiest to cut. No need to lay off staff -- ad expenditures are 100 per cent outsourced and discretionary. And therefor easy to trim instantly at the first sign of diminished revenue.

    The larger picture is worth critical analysis - how did we end up relying on commercials to subsidize all media and what are the implications for a democratic dialogue?

    But there is a kind of hopeless passivity in blaming the travails of women's magazines on their perceived sins against women, rather than the heartless 'unseen hand' of market conditions. Especially when the answer is essentially to thank the advertisers for cutting their ad spending as a remedy. We are better off engaging politically and culturally on issues such as Richmond has pointed to than we are cheering when advertisers momentarily shut off the flow of ad spend.

  • Jeffrey J.

    2 years ago

    So True

    Ms. Redmond couldn't have said it better:" I'm pretty. You're ugly. Buy This." This says it all. And sums up the entire basis for most advertising aimed at women and girls. It is offensive, disparaging and in some ways, violent towards our young women (and young men). The sooner this industry model disappears, the faster our society can move towards a civilized equality. Good article.

  • livanhardy

    2 years ago

    Lady Mags?

    Vanity Fair?

    Harpers?

    Come on, these are not "Lady Mags" despite the fact that they often have lots of fashion ads. You must have included them because you were able to find numbers on the decline in ad revenue, but it's an awfully big stretch to argue that these are just women's fashion magazines.

  • David Beers

    2 years ago

    Administrator

    livanhardy, That's Harper's Bazaar, not Harper's

    The writer list Harper's Bazaar as a magazine depending on fashion ads and directed largely at women. You're right, Harper's wouldn't fall into that category. Vanity Fair? Lot's of fashion ads. Not sure of the gender split among readers. Thanks for the comment.

  • PatrickMcEvoyHalston

    2 years ago

    Happy Hobbitans

    "The women I talk to aren't tired of fashion, just tired of the fashion glossies and their prettier-than-thou bullying, and tuning into other sources instead."

    They could in a way be turning away from real sunshine, though. Those who turn away from the LA radiance do so maybe because they experience it as bullying (good insight), but also because they like to shrink away into east-coast sensibilities/shadows. Concerning fashion, what is important about Michelle Obama is that she is not Hillary Clinton: that is, she is circumspect, even if perhaps a bit lavish; Hillary was/is at heart, all warm pink sunshine boom!

    With Obama, the rancid ex-smoker types are sensing their moment. Happy hobbitans, beware . . .

    * * *

    @Just Me: Enjoyed your post. Particularly this line: "there is a kind of hopeless passivity in blaming the travails of women's magazines on their perceived sins against women, rather than the heartless 'unseen hand' of market conditions." Do you sense hopelessness in Vanessa's piece, btw?

  • monty

    2 years ago

    money, honey

    David, while Vanity Fair has lots of fashion ads, it also has some of the best written, knowledgeable articles available. The editor's take on the world around him is always a good read.
    The current issue is skinny.
    In regard to the local fashionistas who have succombed to the lure of the ads and shop at those over-priced stores on Robson street, I encourage them to visit Ladner's South Coast Casuals which sells Canadian-made and US-made clothing which lasts longer than some other stuff that's around.
    Sunday is Ladner Village Market day with 150 exhibitors and no I am not a shill for them. Cheers.

  • Just me

    2 years ago

    You're write, Mr. Beers

    This has to be one of my favourite misused homonyms. Assuming you meant "you're right."

    According to Condé Nast's media-kit website, Vanity Fair readers have a male/female ratio of 21/79, a heavy female skew. But another stat, a median reader age of 39.5, certainly counters Richmond's claim that these magazines are an assault on young girls and women.

  • PatrickMcEvoyHalston

    2 years ago

    monotony, monty

    My good Christians, Resist the seductive (al)lure of the Robson-street Succubus!, whose pro-offered sweet-treats promise, but cannot but disappoint. Join me instead at Ladner's South Coast Casuals, where we'll suit you up plain enough for the work-a-day, without offense to those who know God's favour is to be found in the non-pretentious, long-lasting, straight-forward and true. Best thing, this fine (not too fine, mind you) piece of the ordinary hum-drum will last you pretty much forever, so wear-and-tear will not soon bring you down so low you again find yourself tempted through sweet "apple" colour and flavour transience into sin.

    But this evoked skinny/fat dynamic has me thinking . . . How much do you weigh, Vanessa? Going at 798 pound--sorry, page--fashion mag. "obesity" for its indulgence, its lack of self-control, might mean you yourself aren't totally past imagining any and all weight gain a sure sign of one's blameworthy sin. To help you with this, here's an ode from Rebecca Traister on the subject, which hints that weight gain/any and all opulence might indicate a certain soundness of mind, well-being of soul. My apologies if you've already encountered it.

    I do not eat rice cakes and salad: an ode to joys of not eating “chick food”

    I do not eat things bland and pallid

    I will not eat yogurt parfait

    Life's not about how much I weigh

    I don't like crap in place of lunch

    When what I crave are taste and crunch (but not rice cakes)

    I'll have good pizza, I'll have some sushi

    I'll eat a cheeseburger with John Belushi

    I'm a chick, there's no doubt of it

    But take your Diet Coke and shove it

    (Rebecca Traister, Salon, July 7 2009)

  • Just me

    2 years ago

    Biz mags hit harder

    Masthead, Canada's magazine trade magazine, recently reported on the general decline in ads placed in Canadian magazines (the headline: "Ad pages tumble 18.2% in second quarter").

    (Note that it is a lot easier to audit ad pages, as these figures do, than to know just what was paid for those pages. Likely, in the current environment, many ad pages have been sold "off ratecard," i.e.: heavily discounted.)

    Major Canadian women's mags indeed have been hit, but not so hard as magazines in other categories. For example:

    Moneysense (-66.3%)
    Westworld Alberta (-60.2%)
    Canadian Home & Country (-54.3%)*
    Canadian Business (-50%)
    Westworld Saskatchewan (-46%)
    Famous Magazine (-45%)
    Report On Business Magazine (41.9%)
    Profit (-39.3%)
    Financial Post Magazine (-37.1%)
    Movie Entertainment (-34.7%)
    Canadian Geographic (-33.8%)
    Canadian House & Home (-29.9%)
    Outdoor Canada (-29.9%)
    Canadian Home Workshop (-29.2%)
    Vancouver (-28.3%)
    Toronto Life (-25.8%)
    Cottage Life (-25.1%)
    Enroute (-24.8%)
    Flare (-24.5%)
    Western Living (-22.2%)
    Explore (-22.2%)
    Chatelaine (-20.9%)
    Starweek (-19.6%)
    Fashion (-18.9%)
    Loulou (-17.6%)

    Tyee readers are free to lump these titles into categories as they like, but it is pretty apparent that, in a generally bleak environment for ad dollars, women's magazines are getting off comparatively lightly.

    Why my repeated posts on this? Because Richmond's piece is not journalism or even informed comment. It is wishful thinking. The wish is that women's magazines be punished for their mooted sins against women's self-esteem. The only way to do that is to stop reading them.

    Yes, women's mags are suffering, although less than, say, the pinstripe-suited Canadian Business with its 50 per cent drop or Outdoor Canada (surely skewed to a male readership and arguably representing a "dinosaur" image of masculinity) with its 29.9 per cent drop. What possibly can be the sin of Canadian Geographic (down 33.8 per cent)?

    No, no one at the corporate headquarters or ad agencies of L'Oreal or Proctor & Gamble has decided to punish Vogue or Elle for insulting women.

    Richmond has grabbed an uninformed excuse to rerun an old diatribe. Let's see, it comes from a woman writer, in a column we'll guess is aimed at women, yet journalistically it falls far short of the usual Tyee standards for connecting arguments to facts. Gee, that's kind of patronizing, isn't it?

  • nightbloom

    2 years ago

    Lady mags get by on ad

    Lady mags get by on ad revenue not subscriptions and newsstand sales. Chatelaine (english) is still the titan of the the Canadian magazine industry in terms of earnings. Check the numbers on page 3 of Masthead's report on magazine earnings and look carefully at the breakdown & ratios, and then look at the % increase/decrease from 2003 to 2008 in the right hand column. Notice that titles like "Wedding Bells", "Flare" and "Chatelaine" are reporting high % increases (whereas TV mags have experienced the steepest decline):

    http://www.mastheadonline.com/paidaccess/mag_lib/Top50(1).pdf

    Notice also that the only major title with parity between its ad and newsstand/subscription revenues is Readers Digest. Interesting, that.

  • David Beers

    2 years ago

    Administrator

    Just me: thanks for the catch!

    Must have been righting, er, writing, too fast!

  • David Beers

    2 years ago

    Administrator

    monty, agreed!

    you wrote

    David, while Vanity Fair has lots of fashion ads, it also has some of the best written, knowledgeable articles available.

    and I concur.

  • monty

    2 years ago

    Just me

    Any info on Harrowsmith Country Life--published in eastern Canada but delivered across the country?

  • PatrickMcEvoyHalston

    2 years ago

    misused homonyms

    It can be more accurate, or take us closer to the truth, to speak of your righting, if you write in a sprit of righteous fight, however. There are actually some places where people get corrected if they speak of their writing--which bespeaks literacy, and therefore largely also of civility--when their words in whatever form pretend to partake of emblazoned truth. The place where poetry and higher-sense rules dictionary prosaicness, is anywhere I go, so something to know, if "we" ever partake in any day-time word-play dalliance.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Gosh...

    as ever, I am out of step with the prevailing ethos - my idea of a 'lady mag' is GQ. Yummy, yummy photos and hours of reverie about the perfect virile complement to my girlish fashion elan...
    Note 'girlish' and not 'girly'; I insist upon the difference, prosaic though it may be. "Day-time word-play dalliance"... oooh, sounds delightful, alas so little time...Opulence requires work and I've been preparing the luscious straawberries dipped in Callebaut for dinner... Now 'girlish' seems to allow for a certain playfulness yet with clear intent, whereas 'girlie' is simply downright pink. "Lady mag" - echoes of 'no black hose before 5 pm'? Maybe, but surely the important question is what wine to have with dinner: the classic, but slightly banal and oh-so-traditional champagne, or a nicely rough-edged but oh so plummy Chilean red? Me, I'm opting for the red...

  • PatrickMcEvoyHalston

    2 years ago

    Enjoy the red, VivianLea.

    Enjoy the red, VivianLea.

  • MJK

    2 years ago

    A hard hit

    For a taste of what lots of women (and men too) are reading and looking at instead of the tired old paper mags, check out the wonderful:
    http://suicidegirls.com/

  • PatrickMcEvoyHalston

    2 years ago

    Thanks for the link, MJK.

    Thanks for the link, MJK. Lovely people; but lovely people with major tattoos, piercings, stark hair dyes, can have you thinking this is as much what happens after 30 years of Reagonomics' wear-and-tear, as is whatever happens to be going on in the glossies.

  • freebear

    2 years ago

    I care enough only to say I do not care!

    Fashion or good articles will not steer the sustainable path!

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Mad magazine

    Mad magazine hit the nail on the head when it referred to a Lady's magazine as "Vague."

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.