In Defense of Lucky (kind of)

image from

Peeps are complaining about Lucky Mag lately: particularly the Kardashian covers. When it arrived in my mail box, I too, standing in the post office wiping granola crumbs and dog hair from my track pants, said, “WTF?” But then I moved on. I’m not particularly charmed by them, but what does Keri Russell do to get on the cover year after year? Or Jessica Alba? The magazine should not be about being famous. It is about shopping. So while I agree that the KK cover is not reflective of the magazine’s overall objective, I’m not sure how much more stars like Keri or Jessica have to do with shopping.

I subscribe to see what styles are out there, where to buy them, and how to wear them; not for who is on the cover. The new editor is said to be figuring out what’s baby and what’s bath water. For me, the cover woman is bath water. If the difference is the general taste of the cover woman, fine. I’d rather raid Keri’s closet over Kim’s. But I don’t subscribe for that reason.

The business model for newspapers and magazines has been under scrutiny for a time now. They depend on advertising dollars which depend on the number of subscribers and newsstand sales which depend on good content which is influenced by advertising. The Sisters Kardashian have the midas touch when it comes to making money. Slumping ad and newsstand revenue is why the new editor was brought in late last year. It’s her job to recoup and this cover is one difference. Whether it works or not has yet to be seen. From the ire it has conjured in subscribers, it may very well backfire.

However, the fashion spreads, seasonal guides, and other segments appear as palatable as ever. The higher price tags are balanced with lower ones, and I feel like the styles are more conducive to everyday wear. Around 2008 it felt like if I didn’t leave the house wearing a poncho with shorts and skip lunch every day, I would be damned to fashion purgatory. While I despise Kim’s outfit, I’d consider it over the pleated chef pants they used to push as being so “French.” The whole “dress like a French girl” has been a staple so long in their magazine, it’s starting to get embarrassing. It makes me feel like a bumpkin at an ethnic restaurant for the first time.

People like Kim Kardashian move brands and (wild guess) magazines on stands. If I have to put up with KK in a mermaid maitre d’ costume every now and then in order to get to the good stuff inside, so be it. It’s hard times and I understand you’ve got to make a blockbuster to fund that period drama you’ve always wanted to make. Anyway, the subscription is cheap: cheap enough for me to keep it and garner what tidbits I like and ignore the stuff I don’t.


3 responses to “In Defense of Lucky (kind of)

  1. Lonnie

    Point well made! How often we get lost in the trees and forget the majesty of the forest or in this case the majesty of the clothes!!

  2. El Guapo

    The same thig happens with Rolling Stone. They put some young Hollywood star on the cover who doesn’t sing, acts questionably, and looks hot as h$!!. Do people complain? Yes. Do people continue to buy the magazine? Yes. Does any of it really matter if the editor delivers content you want to read? No. People should put their money where their mouth is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Me on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.


%d bloggers like this: