All the stars they got to pose with their children are low rent except Madonna and Lourdes. And Madonna is not as relevant as she was ten years ago... I mean, Jenna Jameson?! WTF?!! She appeals to W's supposed affluent readership?
I could've sworn I subscribed to a Fashion magazine when I subscribed to W... I even used to call it Fashion as Art... I know it wasn't a family and lifestyle mag... but that's what happens when new people take over... I might have found one subscription I won't renew.
I get the sensation that it's now more like a newspaper supplement in the guise of a glossy magazine. Does that make the most of W's selling point - the vast dimensions of its printed page? I don't know, but I'm willing to give it time.
I bought the September issue, which intrigued me, although subsequent issues have been too thin to persuade me to part with my money. But I'm still interested to see what they come up with.
Sears Studio photo much? Ugh. This picture isn't worthy of a W cover, nor any other magazine cover. As for the Katherine letting her child be photographed for W, why not? With the paparazzi driving people insane these days, I don't blame her for wanting to have some control over her child's exposure. I'd get a kick out of having my family photos in W or Vogue, haha.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.