Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-12-05 10:59 AM
Original message |
Who the hell are the clothes in women's mags for? |
|
I'm thumbing through the latest issue of Glamour (I've been getting free issues for the past few months inexplicably) and the fashion layouts feature clothing that not only wouldn't fit 98% of the female population but is hideously expensive. 2 grand for shoes! $800 for a purse! Ya gotta be kidding me. I give them credit for having a full page of "fashion finds for under $50" but other than that, even the features that are supposedly all about dressing regular women on a budget show $200 skirts. Well, I guess that is a bargain compared to the designer outfits but I sure can't afford it.
I'm a single woman with a higher than median average income and I love clothes. High-end mags like Vogue or W feature couture fashion because they are meant for wealthy women but Glamour, Cosmo, et. al., target the middle class. So why don't these publications for whom I am their target customer feature things that I can reasonably afford? They seem to be directing their efforts at a very small percentage of the population. I guess it's working because they've followed the same formula for decades but I still wonder who's buying the $200 skirts.
|
Pool Hall Ace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-13-05 08:19 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Stick figures who make six figures |
|
Some of those outfits are just not going to look good on any woman who weights over 100 pounds.
|
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-13-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Well yeah, the designer stuff for sure |
|
But they also have supposedly "regular" clothes features, some of which really would look great on most women. Except that everything's well over $100. And they consider that to be a bargain. I'm just concerned that there are women out there who don't make a lot of money sinking themselves into debt because they think they have to buy that stuff. As if all the expensive make-up and skin care stuff they shill isn't bad enough. I have a friend who spends at least $150 every time she goes to the cosmetics counter because she's convinced she has to use the expensive brand of skin creams and makeup.
I try to convince them they are being ripped off, to no avail.
|
Pool Hall Ace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-13-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. That is really a shame. |
|
There is a good chance that your friend is paying for pretty packaging and not ingredients that are going to be beneficial to her skin.
I have found that a great deal of information can be garnered from alt.fashion or message boards like makeup alley. There are plenty of perfectly good cosmetics, skincare, and haircare items that can be purchased at Target or a drugstore. You do have to take some of the info with a grain of salt, though. There are the occasional folks who will go into debt because they simply *MUST HAVE* the latest MAC pigment or NARS blush or Stila palette.
The magazine folks who pick out these clothing "bargains" must not be connected to reality! They must think we're all single gals with a boatload of disposable income. I can't imagine spending $100 for a skirt or a top or a pair of dress slacks to wear to work. :crazy:
|
DemBones DemBones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-14-05 02:35 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It seems to me that they've always been that way, though I confess |
|
it's been years since I looked through any of the fashion mags. As a teenager, I did subscribe to Glamour and Mademoiselle, I think for just my junior and senior years of high school at most, maybe just my senior year. One of them featured a great-looking wool suit on the cover of their back-to-school issue in 1965 (my hs graduation year) which I think they priced at $100. I know it was $75 when I found it in a local high-end department store. They had it in a size 5, which I was at the time, so I just was patient and eventually got it on sale for $20!!! What a coup!!! Back then, the small sizes often stayed on the rack long enough to go on sale but that was the best deal I ever got.
But Glamour chose a $75-100 suit for a back-to-school issue's cover in 1965? Who were they thinking of?
Just to give you an idea of prices back then, in 1964, I bought my prom dress for the regular full price of $35 at the toniest store in the city. This was the sort of small store where my mom and I were ushered in to sit on a red velvet loveseat while the salesladies brought out gowns that might interest me. And of course the price included whatever alterations it needed.
|
Mrs_Beastman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-15-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Marie Claire is the least annoying mag |
|
They show runway stuff and show how you can get the look by shopping at Target and the like. And their articles are actually very progressive. They talk about conditions for woman and children around the world in every issue.
|
Pool Hall Ace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-19-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I haven't really checked any mags out in a while; I'll give Marie Claire a try. 
|
NMMNG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-18-05 05:19 AM
Response to Original message |
6. "Who the hell are the clothes in women's mags for?" |
|
Anorexic repukes. Like Ann Coulter for example.
|
eyesroll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-18-05 11:02 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I miss the old "Jane." |
|
I have a subscription, and it seems they did a minor redesign and dumped a lot of the good, old features, including a page on which they showed decent clothes/accessories for under $25, $50 and $100.
Now, they have an entire page of shoes or tank tops or purses, and maybe one is $50 and the rest are $300.
I think the political/sociological stuff has been toned down, too. It's still better than 90% of what's out there (and the fall hasn't been as great as, say, predecessor Sassy's decline), but, still...
|
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed May-18-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
I was way older than it's target audience but I read it all the time. I also agree that Jane is not nearly as good as it used to be.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Oct 22nd 2025, 11:45 AM
Response to Original message |