Ditching the cover girls

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/essentials-magazine-cover-real-women

IPC Media's Essentials will no longer feature models or celebrities on its front cover after a survey of readers suggested they preferred to see "real women".

The October edition of the monthly is entirely model- and celebrity-free and is the climax of a social media campaign to find 10 real women to put on its front cover. The magazine claimed it was a "UK media first for women's glossies".

Essentials' editor, Jules Barton-Breck, said: "So many of these women look, and are, amazing that we wanted to celebrate them. In our recent reader survey 70% told us that they would rather see a real woman on the cover of a magazine than a celebrity, so we're excited to be the first magazine in the UK to do this every month."

Essentials was the biggest climber among the mainstream women's monthlies in the first half of this year, with an average circulation of 115,432.

Ilka Schmitt, the magazine's publisher, said: "Celebrating our readers by putting them on the cover is a brave move, but it just feels right for Essentials. Essentials is a woman's magazine that offers something different and more and more women are discovering that. Seven consecutive year-on-year ABC increases do not lie."

Whaddya think of this? Gimmick/PR stunt? Viable alternative?

I agree with some of the comments under the article that it reads like a rehashed press release rather than an opinion or objective viewpoint on it, but surely this is a step in the right direction...

LittleBook

I think the article is incorrect in saying "Essentials will no longer feature models or celebrities".

Essentials Press Release

In a UK media first for women's glossy magazines, ten real women are starring on the cover of the October issue of Essentials. The entire issue is model and celebrity-free – from the fashion and beauty spreads, to a naked body confidence photo shoot in the health section.

This guy can't even re-hash a press release properly. :rolleyes:

So, yeah ... gimmick.

amacachi

Maybe some day "women's" magazines will stop resembling this, "real" women or not.

iguana

Shouldn't the picture on the cover of a magazine just relate to the article on the inside which will probably entice the most potential readers?

WindSock

Meh. Still much prefer the cover & content of National Geographic, tbh.

panda100

WindSock wrote: »

Meh. Still much prefer the cover & content of National Geographic, tbh.

Private Eye for me! Nothing makes me laugh more.:)

The three cover models hardly look like 'real' women. They've been airbrushed within an inch of their lives,smooth tanned skin,no blemishes,scars or anything. There's probably a zillion ad's inside for anti-ageing creams. While its a step in the right direction,this isn't a not for profit magazine so it reeks of pr stunt.

amacachi

panda100 wrote: »

Private Eye for me! Nothing makes me laugh more.:)

Aye, always pains me to then see The Phoenix's attempt at humour.

Xiney

It's definitely a PR stunt.

Wibbs

Same shít, different day, if you'll pardon my French. Like the Dove ad etc. A little lurch towards a contrived "reality", but beyond that....

It's gotten so boring at this stage. "Real" women indeed. The day I see actual real women on a cover of a woman's magazine will be the day I see a men's magazine have a lead article on "How to lose a six pack in a month" or "you know those gadgets/watches/cars/women you have no hope of getting? Well here's the reality, one iPhone, a Timex, Ford Mondeo and Ann from next door, and Ann is the best thing that could ever happen to you, so appreciate her. Keep dreaming, but wake up once in a while and sniff the rose ya dope".

I'm way more a Nat Geo/Nature/New scientist person myself. Private eye goes well past my head(as does Nat Geo and the rest, but I can BS better on that score ).

panda100

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm way more a Nat Geo/Nature/New scientist person myself. Private eye goes well past my head(as does Nat Geo and the rest, but I can BS better on that score ).

Private Eye does a weekly piss take of women's magazines called 'Glenda Slagg' which highlights the contradictory nature of women's mag's. They tell us that beauty is within and shines though in you pesonality,then have ten pages on how to get rid of dark circles under your eyes.


Irish women mag's are by far the worst I've ever seen. That U mag seems to be obsessed with beauty queens. Beauty pageants were naff and outdated in the 1970's, but U mag gives acres of coverage to these silly pageants.They are obsessed with this shallow consumer culture,like Shopping and clothes is the only way to validate yourself as an Irish women.
I'm all for women intrests story's but you'd swear the only intrests we have are mindless consumerism.

southsiderosie

Corinne Day's recent death really highlights how much fashion photography and magazines have changed in the last 20 years: this cover launched Kate Moss, but an image this raw and natural would NEVER appear on the cover of a magazine in 2010 - regardless of whether "real women" or models are used. The "real woman" thing is just a tired publicity stunt, and frankly there is nothing about the Essentials cover that would make me interested in giving that magazine a second look on the newsstand...and that to me is the real travesty of fashion photography and women's magazines today: they are cookie-cutter BO-RING.

[On a slightly off-topic side note, does anyone else miss Sassy? Or was that just a US-based magazine?]

WindSock

southsiderosie wrote: »

Corinne Day's recent death really highlights how much fashion photography and magazines have changed in the last 20 years: this cover launched Kate Moss, but an image this raw and natural would NEVER appear on the cover of a magazine in 2010 -

That image is far more eyecatching than the usual tanned airbrushed glossy midriffs dotted all over the womens magazine sections. And it has an article on the Stone Roses :pac:. I'd buy that quicker than any other magazine spouting some 'real women' bull over an computer generated image of a generic doll with the lure of sex tips for party girls, or whatever rehashed article they are flogging this month between a mass of ads for clothes that .5% of the population could afford let alone wear. It's waiting room fodder at best.

Xiney

I'll be honest, I think essentials is just looking for a way to not pay their cover models and putting a positive spin on it :P

I used to get essentials - bought it on a whim once because it had a cute free notebook thing that I wanted. It's a bit... old... for me, since I'm 24. But I am something of an accidental housewife and I'm not great at cleaning and I liked the time saving tips so I got it pretty regularly for a couple of years.

Thing is though, the quality of the magazine has gone WAY down hill - it's not just me getting bored with the content. I noticed it almost as soon as the recession hit that the magazines got thinner, had less substance, and I've pretty much stopped buying them now. They also never have free give away issues either.