Ticked off

[Sabledrake]

What I always find most bothersome about "women's magazines" is that for every article, there's a contradictory article. One on losing weight, one on desserts. One on how to get a man, one on how to dump him. One on beauty secrets of the stars, one on appreciating your natural beauty.

Pff. Me, I prefer perusing The Weekly World News for my checkout stand reading. At least with that one, nobody expects the articles to be taken seriously.

Sabledrake

 

[Quasimodem]

Or, we could take Flicka's idea the other way:

"WHAT NOT TO BUY TO BECOME RICH, POPULAR, DESIRABLE, SEXY, FAMOUS, AND KEEP THE MONEY YOU STARTED WITH."



Like Doc, I believe their real message is dissatisfaction.

Same is true for diet books and motivational speakers. First, they must make you dissatisfied with what you have, then con you that they can help.

I always get a little antsy around "Motivational Speakers."

The richer and more successful they are, the antsier I get.

Tony Roberts makes me do the Lambada.

At least I get a little exercise.


PS: There IS such a word as "antsy" but IS there such a word as "antsier?"

 

[DirtyJJ]

destinie,
I agree with most of what you said about women's magazines being crap. That being said, I do sometimes read them. I consider myself an intelligent, secure woman... but there are times when I want to just read something mindless to pass a little time. I usually pass over the diet and exercise stories because I am happy with my body and if I want to change it I know what I need to do. Sometimes I read the sex articles, because you never know what you will pick up. The thing I hate the most about these magazines is the fashion pages with $300 t-shirts and shoes for $750. Ludicrous - even if you had that kind of money which no one I know does.

What does concern me is young insecure girls looking at these, and not being able to tell the difference between the model on the page and a real, achievable body/face/hair, whatever.

As far as women's magazines go, I usually find Oprah's magazine to be a bit more positive and inspirational than the others, even if it falls into some of the same typical traps as other magazines.
JJ

 

[destinie21]

I guess I'll just have to stick to books and fashion catolouges

 

[OldnotDead]

. . . .

Pff. Me, I prefer perusing The Weekly World News for my checkout stand reading. At least with that one, nobody expects the articles to be taken seriously.

Sabledrake

WHAT?!!! You mean you do not believe the article about Ossama and Sadaam's marriage? But THEY had PICTURES!!! I saw them.

 

[Guest]

Sable's comment reminds me that when Richard Feynman won the Nobel prize he gave only two interviews. One to his local newspaper (not the L.A. Times), and to the National Enquirer. He explained that the one was for his community, the other because if they printed anything erroneous he could always refute it per the rag's reputation.

I'm glad JJ mentioned young girls, their malleability and vulnerability should be of concern to femme-mag editors, but obviously are not.

Perdita

 

[Sabledrake]

WHAT?!!! You mean you do not believe the article about Ossama and Sadaam's marriage? But THEY had PICTURES!!! I saw them.

Was Bat Boy the ring bearer?

Sabledrake

 

[Mhari]

Sable's comment reminds me that when Richard Feynman won the Nobel prize...

Appropos of nothing...I adore Richard Feynman. They just don't make 'em like that anymore! *sigh*

 

[Guest]

Appropos of nothing...I adore Richard Feynman.

Mhari, it's not nothing. I worked in his division at Caltech, he was devastatingly (fave word lately) charming. You don't forget men like that.

Perdita

 

[Xelebes]

Was Bat Boy the ring bearer?

Sabledrake

Not only that, but he also brought ass-milk to make all the women attending into hot sex-kittens.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm glad JJ mentioned young girls, their malleability and vulnerability should be of concern to femme-mag editors, but obviously are not.

Ofcourse they are - they're the main target for the ad campaigns.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The main thing to note is these magazines stay afloat by their advertising, not their subscription prices. The advertisers in effect drive the editorial staff and writers. What they want is people buying their products.

Ode De Cow Poop Perfume has a vested interest in you feeling like your current scent isn't attractive enough to land a man. Clothing designers have a vested interest in making sure you don't look in the closet and decide last years wardrobe is fine since most of it has only been worn once or twice. Every charlatan peddling a miracle weight loss plan has a vested interest in you feeling you are too fat.

A full page add for Doctor Quack's slim fast program is going to get more nibbles on the page before or after "Loose 50 lbs and feel great" then it will after "Be happy with your body". Women spend money and these magazines are geared towards them spending it on advertisers products. They are basically the equivilent of an infomercial. They will be around in their current format until people stop buying them enough to force a change.

The only place I read them is in the doctor's office and I am usually worried enough or sick enough when forced to visit that I don't mind having my intelligence insulted by the tripe that passes for articles. If I ever find myself moved to purchase anything I see advertised in them I make myself look at it long and hard and make sure I need it. For me the advertising works in reverse, if I see it in cosmo I simply assume I don't need it or if I do I get it from a company I didn't see in the mag.

-Colly

 

[Xelebes]

For me the advertising works in reverse, if I see it in cosmo I simply assume I don't need it or if I do I get it from a company I didn't see in the mag.

-Colly

To tell you the truth, that's one way of actually advertising. By initially turning them off by a certain product. But the name stays, and so you refer to it later when you come across the 'need' to purchase such a thing.

 

[The_Fool]

I still like the Lingerie ads.....

 

[Xelebes]

I still like the Lingerie ads.....

I guess I'll have to keep the Real Canadian Superstore's weekly flyer away from you.

 

[Guest]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Why is it that so many women seem to be insulted by the articles in "Women's magazines" when most men aren;t insulted by the goofiness we see in "Men's magazines"? I don't think most men are insulted by the crap they have in Maxim and Hustler or whatever. It's not because we don't think the articles are stupid; they are stupid. We just don't take it personally.

Why do you guys take women's magazines personally?

---dr.M.

 

[whispering_surrender]

Why is it that so many women seem to be insulted by the articles in "Women's magazines" when most men aren;t insulted by the goofiness we see in "Men's magazines"? I don't think most men are insulted by the crap they have in Maxim and Hustler or whatever. It's not because we don't think the articles are stupid; they are stupid. We just don't take it personally.

Why do you guys take women's magazines personally?

---dr.M.

Because women are neurotic and insane.....but, if we have to live with ourselves, so do you men. *grin*

Whisper

 

[Svenskaflicka]

If a certain brand has a really stupid or insulting ad, I will choose another brand instead, and I'll tell my friends about why I'm boycotting that brand, too.

I've turned a bunch of people away from several brands that way.

 

[OldnotDead]

There's some really interesting marketing statistics, Flicka, not so much about ads as about customers. A customer with a good, positive experience is only likely to make positive referrals about 20% of the time, and then to a relatively small group. In other words, about 1 in 5.

A customer with a negative experience, however, is much more likely, 80%, to make a negative referral and then to a much larger group. Marketing people suggest that to overcome one negative experience, you need to cause 10 positive ones. And that just keeps you even.

I've never seen any analysis of advertising in that regard. I do remember seeing one study about both annoying and positive ads in which the viewers could not remember the brand involved more than half the time.