I saw an interesting figure the other day, that Elle (US) paid subscriptions are up by 21% while Vogue's are only up by 8%. This was used by the author of the article i saw the fact in as further arsenal in Elle's triumph over Vogue, and the death of the whole concept of Vogue (aspirational fashion) in the forseeable future. However i think that this is a pointer to Vogue that they need to up their game in the one area that gets a subscriber to, well, subscribe.
Subscription covers.
Reese Witherspoon - Newsstand/Subscribers cover US Elle April 2009
Drew Barrymore - Newsstand/Subscribers cover US Elle 2009
Megan Fox - Newsstand/Subscribers cover US Elle 2009 
Gwen Stefani - Newsstand/Subscribers cover US Elle July 09 Subscriber's covers are received only by those who have paid subscriptions and are designed to be an incentive for subscription. The logic is that the only people who subscribe would be those genuinely interested in the magazine and, causally, in fashion. Poor logic, i know, but let's just run with it for the moment. Therefore cover images are (usually) a different image of the same starlet that graces the newstand cover, but without the bombardment of text and conventional posing and background. Elle and Harper's Bazaar are the two magazines that offer subscriber's covers and both offer subscribers a more unconventional and 'fashion' image on the subscriber's cover. The image is from the same editorial as that of the newstand cover and often uses a different, less commercial pose, perhaps the cover star is not looking down the barrel of the camera and smiling secretly (as is the case so often with Elle covers). Subscriber's covers give the editorial team a bit more allowance to be creative and a bit different.
The other major difference between Subscriber's covers and Newstand covers is the lack of text. Since Subscribers are not buying the cover at the newsagent they do not need to be bombarded with cover lines using cheesy alliteration and sensational tactics to grab attention and urge the casual magazine buyer to pick up their issue. American magazines are particularly guilty of this overuse of text, their magazine market is incredibly competitive and newstand sales are generally down. In a bid to gain more sales they try and entice the reader with more and more text, offering an article to engage their every need and desire. Sometimes it can work, the Megan Fox cover is an example of the text bombardment working quite well. But sometimes it is so crowded. Too much. The Reese WItherspoon cover is an example of that. Almost every space surrounding Reese (and some on her too) is covered with text.
A glance at some international Vogues will show you that this text bombardment is not always necessary. Vogue Italia and Paris both manage to use one word cover lines most of the time in order to let the cover image stand out. They also, it must be said, are less commercial than US Vogue and Elle and are catering to a more fashion-y crowd, which is why they can get away with it. But the use of, often, one single line of text on the subscriber's cover is an example of these magazines attempt to have the best of both worlds.
Kate Beckinsale - Newstand/Subscribers UK Elle December 2009 
Kyle Minogue - Newsstand/Subscribers UK Elle May 2009
Winona Ryder - Newsstand/Subscribers UK Elle July 2009So, Vogue, with your subscription levels lagging behind that of Elle's would it be reasonable to conclude that they are offering something that you aren't? I don't subscribe to any magazines, so cannot comment on the experience itself, but if there were subscribers covers i would definitely be tempted to subscribe. I love the idea of subscribers covers, having something a little different to what everyone else is getting. It's kind of elite in a way, even if really it isn't at all because thousands of other people subscribe across the nation. I love the idea that subscribers are treated with a more interesting cover, and aren't made to wade through all that text to see the beauty of the cover star themselves.
Even more than that, and especially in the case of US Elle, the cover image is so boring and bland. I have nothing against the people chosen, after reading US Vogue for this long i've come to appreciate the commercial, not too probey interview with various starlets. What i do have a problem with is the fact that magazines like Harpers US and Elle put the most conventional image on the cover. I swear those images of Megan Fox and Drew Barrymore are almost identical except for their faces. I wish they could put someone on who isn't smiling slyly or pouting coquettishly. All I'm asking for is a different pose! and then they go and give that to subscribers, it's like a reward for not being a pleb newsstand buyer!
And that's the only issue i have with newsstand covers vs. subscribers covers. It does make the assumption that the only people who subscribe are those interested in fashion and, therefore, the only people who buy from the newsstand are the plebs who don't know any better, which simply isn't the case. I actually can't subscribe cheaply to any of these magazines and with the cost of shipping and the added worry of it simply not turning up some months (like my vanity fairs urrgghh) it works out a similar rate to just buying it newstand. But that doesn't mean that i don't appreciate what they are doing with the subscribers covers or fashion itself. Also there is a simple thrill in buying a magazine from a newsagent and picking it apart right then and there. I'm not so sure i want to give that up just yet.
There is also the fact that in many cases the newsstand covers and subscribers covers are both lovely. That is the case with Elle UK and Harpers Bazaar UK. I'm not sure what it is about the UK magazine market, perhaps it's just more creative (this is the country that birthed Pop and Lula, after all!) but all of the magazines I buy from the UK are consistently amazing. I will always reserve a special place in my heart for Vogue UK, who taught me to love fashion and clothes, and who makes me smile with every turn of the slightly scented pages. But recently i have come to appreciate the sleek, well-designed layout of Harpers Bazaar, it is a feast for the eyes and its celebrity covers are always, without fail, inspired. Alexa Chung, then January Jones, and then Uma Thurman, all shot in interesting ways? Any magazine that can do that gets a huge thumbs up from me. Similarly UK Elle is the leader in attainable fashion and trends, a magazine for a fashion-lover at any budget. They also have different cover choices, this year they have had Kylie Minogue, Winona Ryder and Courtney Love. With cover girls like that, who needs a subscription?
I'm sure all of you will remember the debacle that was Harpers Bazaar July 2009. The Newsstand cover was Angelina Jolie, taken at the Benjamin Button Premier in December last year. It was a red carpet shot, not from an editorial. It was covered in text, some of it in that tacky painted font in baby pink, as well as those horrible banners that Harpers and Vogue insist on obscuring their header with. However Subscribers were in for a pleasant surprise. Instead of another shot of Jolie on the red carpet they got the drop dead gorgeous Doutzen Kroes, shot by Terry Richardson, in a pose and expression akin to the January Jones June 2009 cover for Harpers UK (an absolutely stunning cover if ever i saw one...) Minimal text. no banner, no tacky paint font, no pastel colours... Gee it almost looks like Harpers UK!
There was general uproar as people discussed what was going on in the Harpers US office. Did Angie cancel the shoot at the last minute meaning that they had to reach for gettyimages? Possible, but not probably considering that there isn't even an interview with Angelina inside, instead an 'essay' discussing the allure and obsession with Angelina by society written by Naomi Woolf. So why did they put this old image of Angelina on the cover, an image that would not be out of place on the cover of People or US Weekly, when they had an abundance of editorial within the pages of the magazine (Milla Jovovich, Doutzen and various other models also shot for the issue) that would have done extremely well? And why, when the team have proven themselves to be more than talented at putting an incredibly, incredibly beautiful and striking cover together as shown by Doutzen's masterpiece, do they continue to sell themselves short?
The answer is money. The harsh fact is that the average person doesn't know who Doutzen is. And they won't be content to pick up a magazine just because it looks nice (you have to admit that even if you didn't know Doutzen that cover is fabulous). They need something to inspire them to read it, that's why people flick through magazines to see what the content is like before they buy. And Angelina, with all that sparkly and celebrity interest and brad pitt boyfriend-ness is what the public wants. Ironically that's exactly what Naomi Woolf is writing about in her essay.
It's a generalisation, i know, but one that i have found to ring true. It's the reason why US Vogue is always lambasted for commercial cover choices: They can't put whoever they want on the cover because they have to satisfy the average reader. And the average reader wants gloss and glamour and gore, as well as someone they can recognise on the cover. Models don't sell anymore, not unless they become celebrities in their own right (hello, gisele!). Despite this though, it is clear that this was just sheer laziness on the part of Bazaar. I would have commended them even more had they had the balls to put Doutzen on the newsstand and throw caution to the wind. I would even have bought a couple of copies, as i did for the Vogue US cover with the models on the front, in order to boost sales in the little way that i could and send the message to Harpers that this is what they need to be doing.
As it is, it looks like this is the future of magazines. A well known star on the cover for the plebs, and then a beautiful style shot for the fashionistas. And it's sad that this is what magazines are coming to and that they don't have the courage to go with a beautiful, original cover over one that uses a red carpet image... oh dear... i could go on about this for days. Is that what the industry of magazines has come to? It certainly looks that way. With editors of commercial markets taking less and less risks and travesties such as this occurring it seems that we are moving away from the boundary testing world of magazines that we saw in the 70s and 80s and into a commercial bubble that sees fashion triumph only for the subscribers.
And what will Vogue do? Will they continue to offer the same cover for both newsstand and subscribers and run the risk of losing their subscribe quota even more? Or will they grow as a magazine and adapt. I hope the latter, as with Vogue's resources and abilities they could produce some really beautiful subscribers covers, the kind that people are always hoping Anna will send forth but she never does because of commercial constraints. Here's to the future, and renew your subscription.
X
You have read this article magazines /
vogue
with the title renew your subscription.... You can bookmark this page URL http://startthefire-cafagesta.blogspot.com/2009/07/renew-your-subscription.html. Thanks!
