Tagged ‘magazines’

Magazines and Women

Friday, August 19th, 2011

I'm a big fan of magazines. While I usually stick with fashion magazines, lately I've been reading some other more business oriented titles. This year, Anthony and I started our own company for our personal pursuits and I felt really lost throughout the process. So when I got the opportunity to redeem some points for magazine subscriptions, I decided to go with a few titles that would help me wrap my head around our business needs. I subscribed to Inc Magazine, Entrepreneur and Fast Company.

I've really enjoyed my subscription to Inc Magazine. I find their articles to be super informative and their interviews, like recent ones with execs from Tumblr and Kid Robot, to be truly inspiring. And, for what it's worth, I appreciate the attention to detail in the graphic layout of the pages themselves. I love that it's a happy marriage of helpful content and creative design. I also like that the magazine is not written for a particular gender. Women and men alike can pick it up and get something out of it. This is not to say that every magazine should do this, but it's nice that a magazine marketing towards small business owners does not discriminate.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Entrepreneur. Now, working in technology in various industries, I've realized it's a boy's club — not that that's entirely a bad thing! I've worked with some pretty talented men and learned a lot from them (most notably that the lack of women in their midst is mostly an oversight, not intentional). I also happen to like a lot of things men typically like more than most women (sports, fried foods, gadgets) so it doesn't really bother me to spend time in the company of dudes.

That said, there are definite differences between me and my male colleagues. For example, it is probably not socially acceptable for them to wear dresses, or bare their legs at all at work. Though, if I were to wear baggy jeans and oversized t-shirts as they do, I would probably have some difficulty being taken seriously (I don't say this to be contrary; I say this because it actually happened to me).

And this point precisely brings me back to Entrepreneur magazine. Their September issue, which just arrived in my mailbox today, included an article about over-dressing vs under-dressing; the cover simply reads "Exclusive. How to Dress: The Taxonomy of Casual." I was really excited to read that piece because I struggle with this point when dressing myself for work. I don't want to dress too formally (or too trendy, per the industry I'm currently in…) and risk ostracizing myself from my colleagues but I still want to dress in a way that will gain respect (the whole "dress for the job you want" thing).

I read the article and was really disappointed to see it was written for a target audience of 100% men. The graphic associated with the article showed ONLY cartoon-y male characters wearing different types of dress. The depiction of only men didn't stop me from reading the article though, as there as no indication that this article was merely discussing menswear. I think that's probably what surprised me the most; though the article in question was written by an editor at Esquire, it wasn't explicitly stated that this was a "man's guide" to dressing. They had just inferred that only men would be reading it.

This unfortunately begs the question: are women not considered entrepreneurial? I think we all know what the answer to that is and I'm sure it is backed up by data that suggests that most of their subscribers are men or that more men start companies or get VC funding. Despite the data, whatever it may be, why isolate your female readers? Would it have been that difficult to provide a more balanced piece? Considering they hit up Esquire to write about work appropriate clothes, how about consulting an editor of woman's magazine to briefly touch on women's wear? Surprisingly, it is not for lack of women on the cutting room floor; the editor in chief of the magazine is indeed a woman.

I brought this up to the network of women I know and many agreed with my sentiments. In fact, one commented that she has seen technology magazines in airports under the "Men's interests" section. Why is technology only a man's interest? While I acknowledge that there is a dearth of women in tech, that doesn't automatically exclude women from possibly being interested in such publications.

And this is the fundamental flaw – the imposition of gender roles that deny the existence of quite a few people. By writing that article for an audience of men, you are further impressing the position that entrepreneurs are exclusively men. A more balanced article, including women even in small part, would at least acknowledge that there are indeed female entrepreneurs (Yes, really. They exist! And highlighting only those who start cupcakes businesses is not at all representative of the majority of women who own businesses!).

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these issues being that I'm both a woman and an underrepresented minority, but I'm willing to imagine that I'm not the only woman who picked up the magazine and was just plain bummed to see that she was excluded from participating in that feature.

Magazine Covers: Rolling Stone's September 2010

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

I am a big fan of magazines. In fact, there's a side table in my house that stores tens of them at any given time in our living room.  While the content (the actual articles) may be lackluster at times, the bright colors and fun layouts appeal to the visual part of my brain.  And of course, when it comes to fashion magazines, there are the clothes.  Lots of beautiful clothes. In addition to loving graphic design, I'm also a fan of really well designed clothes (and accessories).

It may be a bit nerdy, but one of my favorite things to do at newsstands is stand in front of rows of magazine covers and take them all in.  What color palette is being used on the cover?  How's the typography and typesetting?  And finally, how was the cover star photographed (and by extension, to what extent was he/she photoshopped…)?  I like to take in the elements I like, and apply them to the things I get a chance to design and (beginning today!) write critiques about the elements I wasn't too keen on.

True Blood stars on cover of Rolling Stone Magazine

This brings me to the cover of the latest Rolling Stone featuring three of the stars of HBO's True Blood. The cover (as you can see to the right) shows all three characters naked and covered in blood. Anna Paquin is the only female of the bunch and she is positioned between the two men (Alexander Skarsgard and Stephen Moyer, respectively). There is a lot of buzz around this cover for obvious reasons. Personally, I'm not offended that they are naked. The naked body is a beautiful (even magical, if you think about its potential) thing. Moreover, I'm not really bothered by the blood. The show is about vampires and the name of the show includes the word "blood," it comes with the territory, so to speak. However, what bothers me about the cover is the posing of the bodies. The positioning is borderline pornographic. If you removed Anna Paquin's recognizable face and replaced it with a porn star's, I would have totally believed this photo to be the cover of a Pirates-esque vampire porno.

Now, I'm not a prude. I don't think there's anything wrong with porn (as long as everyone involved in the making is getting tested and paid). But I do take issue with mainstream media exploiting sex when it is convenient. Rolling Stone didn't put this photo on their cover because it's a great photo. It's actually pretty lame as far as sexually charged photos go (the eyes are, for lack of a better word, lifeless — I mean, I get that they are vampires but really?). They put this on their cover because sex sells and they desperately needed to move copies of the magazine. And truthfully, I probably wouldn't be talking about Rolling Stone had it not been for this unfortunate cover. So, from Rolling Stone's perspective, perhaps the mission was accomplished? However, it seems like a missed opportunity for HBO to better promote a show that it seems a lot of people are excited about.

The State We're In

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but last night I got sucked into a British gossip website. I think what particularly struck me was that Rod Stewart was expecting his eighth child (at 66 years old, which I think is terribly irresponsible, but that's a story for another day…). Of course, once you are in a gossip site, you can't disengage. I clicked around for the better part of a half an hour, consuming silly articles about celebs behaving (mostly) badly. I got around to one article about Lady Gaga where the author wrote something along the lines of she'll be performing her next show at "New York's Staples Center."

I could let the reporter slide for not being from the United States, but I won't. For the record, the Staples Center is not in fact in New York but actually in Los Angeles (it is where the Lakers play their games). This error really struck a chord with me in part because it is so lazy. The writer of this article should have done some fact checking prior to reporting something so completely false. If one were to google (or even bing, for that matter) "staples center," it is very clear from the ensuing results (like press releases that begin with "LOS ANGELES, CA") that there is definitely no Staples Center in New York. Furthermore, the writer's editor should have noticed and corrected this pretty egregious error.

In general, though, I've noticed a lot of errors in online journalism (not just the lack of fact-checking, but also spelling and grammar mistakes). It's really a shame because bloggers often are overlooked by mainstream media as amateurs yet it is this kind of thing that fuels that notion. My opinion is if you are doing any kind of journalism (not all blogs do this, but some — like technology-focused blogs, for instance — report on news that very few print outlets touch), you really need to maintain a level of professionalism and maintain that everything that prints (even if it is printed onscreen) has been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy.

Several large magazine retailers (that have been hurting very much with ad sales plummeting) began a campaign a few months back called "The Power of Print." While at first it seemed a bit pretentious, I think they do have a point (besides protecting their livelihood). Something about the nature of a magazine, perhaps the fact that it is written word, makes it tangible. There's also a definite craft to it — a page can only be so long, a layout must be aesthetically pleasing. And I have to say that I do enjoy reading magazines because the distractions (like typos and errant facts) are very rare.

In short, you can distill my thoughts down to the fact that quality control is incredibly important. For any brand, whether you are Conde Nast or Gawker, maintaining a consistent product is vital for enduring in any market.