Celebs vs. Models on Magazine Covers

[moirla]

I am so sick of seeing actresses/celebrities on the covers of fashion magazines. I hope it will stop...:S

 

[Erin]

^ I think many are unworthy. But I don't mind seeing Paltrow, Madonna, J. Moore, and a handful more - those women are intriguing to me... but I'm tired of Sienna - that's for sure.

 

[PinkVanilla.]

Well i sure do like seeing models on the covers. But thats bcoz i may know stuff about them, bcoz i may be a fan, but not everybody is really intrested in the models, they may just want to see celebs they know ... they may want to see keira knightley & drew barrymore bcoz they see them on tv, they see them in movies. & though how manny ppl really know who lara stone & snejana onopka, are? The thing is celebs on the cover = selling more, we like it or not

 

[Galini]

My vote goes to MODELS!

There are some actresses I want to see on covers, like Rachel Weisz, Cate Blanchett, Gong Li, but seriously guys... when I see someone like Keira Frightley on the cover... I just feel like all over it.
Or some tacky celeb like Paris Hilton or Ivanka Trump can do covers for men magazines, but high fashion?

 

[tigerrouge]

A link to an article in the Daily Mail, written by a former editor of UK Marie Claire:

"I put Christy Turlington on the cover of my magazine; it bombed. I put Heidi Klum on the cover; it bombed. Like every other woman's magazine editor, embroiled in a circulation war heated up by the arrival of the new, tiny, clever glossy Glamour, I soon found out that only a Spice Girl or an A-list Hollywood star would sell sufficient copies."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=479978&in_page_id=1879

 

[Erin]

^ It's a shame... but that makes sense to me... these people have fans, many fans. Fans buy the magazines. It makes sense.

 

[sepia]

I think there could be more of a balance. At least a few issues a year can be given to models. It would help if we had more famous models to sell issues.

 

[scriptgirl]

Sorry, but I prefer celebs on fashion mag covers and on covers in general. Today's models do not have the same impact or mystique of the 90s supers. They all look the same to me. Natalia Vodianova, Liya and Emanuela de Paula Gisele and Noemie Lenoir are really the ones that stand out to me.

 

[kimair]

from jezebel.com...

Here's a quote that gets under our skin: "I wish we could get a gorgeous model [on the cover] and make someone's career, but I can't risk that." That's courtesy of CosmoGirl! editor-in-chief Susan Schulz, via today's WWD. Here's the problem: The era of celebrities on the cover of magazines has got to end sometime. These things are cyclical, and the way to end one cycle and begin a new one is to have the balls -- or the ovaries -- it takes to make a change. The readers may be slow to catch on, but eventually they'll see: When there's a model on the cover of a teen magazine, suddenly the focus changes from the superficial Hollywood ideal to a truer, more realistic one.

Using a great model creates a mirror, or an aspirational figure: The great teen magazine covers of the past used models as representatives of the everygirl, smiling happily and jumping for joy -- pretty, but somehow normal -- so that the reader could project herself into that lifestyle, those clothes, that attitude. A girl should be able to recognize herself in the model. Because a model isn't supposed to be a role model. She's supposed to be a canvas on which an idea is painted. She's supposed to be someone a girl can look at and think, "I could be that girl." Past CosmoGirl! covers include those with questionable qualifications, such as Ashlee Simpson (post nose job!), Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie and Kristin Cavallari.

Obviously publishing a teen magazine is running a business. The bottom line is all about sales. But the "business" also happens to have a hand in shaping young womens' lives. I remember old issues of Seventeen and YM (and Sassy) vividly. Not the covers, mostly. But the invaluable things on the interior pages: Tales of real girls, with lives so different from my own, and yet with common bonds: period stain trauma! Cool eyeshadow! Unattainable crushes! Stupid babysitting jobs! Readers today may pick up a magazine because of the big name celeb on the cover, but surely it's the actual content they keep coming back for: Cosmogirl! has great makeup tips, love advice, fashion ideas, crush quizzes, insider info on choosing a college. Why wait for Vogue or some other adult publication to turn the tide? As the song says, kids are the future. Magazines are one of the tools girls equip themselves with in order to survive in this crazy world. How can Heidi Montag be of any help? Believing your product only has value when packaged in a celebrity wrapper is a tragedy, and actually underestimates the girls whose dollars you gladly take.

 

[scriptgirl]

Models are no more "real" or "superficial" than a Hollywood actress. In fact, they are even more superficial. Who are they kidding with that BS. Thankfully, celebs are going to continue to get fashion covers because they are more interesting, they are getting those couture, fragrance and makeup contracts. I for one, see nothing wrong with it and I applaud it. There are many up and comers I cannot wait to see get covers: Camilla Belle, Paula Patton, Emily Blunt, Jessica Alba, Cassie, Zhang Ziyi, Rinko Kikuchi (for them I mean American fashion covers). etc.

 

[Luxx]

I have resigned myself to the fact that US Vogue is never going to have model covers again. Its just the sad truth for now - however the actress selection needs to change. There is too much repetition - I know some actresses sell more than others but I've seen certain actresses on the cover so many times that its become expected. At this point I no longer even buy covers featuring certain women.

There are of course magazines where I expect models and cherish for promoting models. I don't want to see any of those doing celebrity covers any time soon.

I also feel as though celebrities vs. models is an aesthetic choice. I don't feel as though there would be as much complaining were aesthetically interesting covers produced.

 

[laughingdisorder]

Problem is with US vogue, not really much to do with celebrities/models. US vogue is just dull in general, celebrities who's been on repetitive covers such as Kate Hudson, Aniston and others are bland looking mediocre actresses who has made no significant contribution to fashion or acting for that matter. They need to change their bloody line up!

To be perfectly honest, I've never understood why they put so many celebrities on a magazine like vogue, it's meant to be a high fashion magazine. People who buy it are not really looking for starstyle and such...none of my friends who are not into fashion would ever buy vogue, no matter what celebrities are on it simply because they're not going to buy a magazine for one article on a celeb they like and flip briefly through 200 odd pages they're indifferent to.

 

[xPedro]

Sometimes I wonder why did Vogue US put Gisele on the cover in her second year modeling, and they're taking so much time to put Raquel & Caroline on the cover ...

 

[yalil]

I live in a big city in the US and not the edge of nowhere. I did some cleaning and I dumped my Vogues (UK and US) and Harper's Bazaar in the magazine box in the laundry room in our building. People snapped up Jennifer Aniston, Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley and Gwyneth Paltrow and nobody picked up Natalia Vodianova, Linda Evangelista, the next supermodels cover and Sasha. They've been lying there for weeks now. If people won't take these magazines at no cost to them, do you actually expect them to pay for them at the newsstand?

People who buy US fashion magazines for fashion will still buy these magazines because 1. there's no other US magazine choice (all magazines feature celebs anyway) 2. the foreign magazine choices are more expensive, and you have to go to your city Borders/Barnes and Noble to get them when you can get Vogue at the local Walgreens/Rite Aid/Target/Walmart. They are already a captive audience. But if you put a popular tabloid friendly celeb on the cover, you get housewives, teenagers, and hard at work women whose only free time is watching the evening news to catch the ad for the latest Reese/Keira/Natalie/Gwyneth movie to actually buy the magazine too. You attract a new population of buyers. Not rocket science folks.

And I do like models on magazines, that's why I occasionally buy Vogue Italia, UK, Paris. But even if they are models, it is still the same celeb-reasoning going on. People still buy the covers of the models that are popular and identifiable. So Kate Moss and Gisele sell magazines and people will argue that they are celebs themselves. Fine. But why is Stam, Sasha, Gemma, Lily more visible compared to, say Inguna?

Whether celebs or models, the reasoning is the same. Magazines put somebody people are familiar with. Unless they are Meisel who gets away with anything. I guess I will buy Vogue Italia with an unknown model if it's truly kickass. That's the exception. Won't spend my 20 bucks on a pointless cover with an un-charismatic model (and I did feel that there was a conspiracy to force-feed Catherine Mcneil.)

 

[yourbestfriend]

Sometimes I wonder why did Vogue US put Gisele on the cover in her second year modeling, and they're taking so much time to put Raquel & Caroline on the cover ...

US Vogue was not alwyas so hesitant on putting models on the covers. Back when Gisele was modelling she was lucky enough to be at a time when models were on the covers! If you look at other US Vogue covers from then, you will see covers from Angela Lindvall and Amber Valetta. Sadly Raquel and Caroline are not in a time where that is as possible. At least they were on the May cover..

 

[Label Basher]

I did some cleaning and I dumped my Vogues (UK and US) and Harper's Bazaar in the magazine box in the laundry room in our building.

You chucked out your magazines Are you insane

This statement keeps on coming up all the time with regards to celeb covers (mostly in the US Vogue threads) -

"She hasn't done anything to deserve a Vogue cover"

What do people mean by that? Is it that "celeb" has't been in enough hit movies or because they wouldn't know their John Galliano from their John Paul Gaultier?

Why don't they deserve a cover? Is there a list of requirements a cover star must have? What are they?

 

[Luxx]

Great points all around.

I feel as though a distinction should be made between a magazine that is primarily fashion and a magazine that is primarily about the entertainment industry. As fashion as become more intertwined with entertainment I feel there has been less and less of a distinction as to what constitutes as "fashion" publication and what constitutes a celebrity one. A magazine like Vogue and one such as Vanity Fair have a great deal of overlap in some respects. I enjoyed back in the day (geez I sound like an old timer ) when I could look to Vogue for lovely pictures of models and on point coverage of fashion and I could look to VF for my beautiful shots of celebrities. Now I feel as though the two are slowly becoming just one big magazine. US Vogue has certainly become more of a general interest publication in the past few years - at least in my opinion.


As for what makes someone deserve a cover - I can only speak for myself but I enjoy when the celebrity in question on a fashion magazine has something to do with fashion or is on some level known for their style. I also enjoy when the interview itself is about fashion - it was interesting when Vogue took Renee Zellweger to the Paris shows and the editorial corresponded. That was fresh I thought - I'm not overly interested in an actor or actress' personal life outside of say the gossip columns. That side of things is all well and good but when I open a fashion magazine I feel as though the interviews should be fashion oriented. I'd rather read about the other things in a lifestyle or general interest magazine.

I feel there are ways to improve upon the celebrity covers if there are going to be as many as there are currently. There are always creative problem solving solutions for everything

 

[iluvjeisa]

Art and commerce have, ironically, become completely disjoined. I wish Andy Warhol and Diana Vreeland could come back and make everything all better.

 

[yalil]

You chucked out your magazines Are you insane

Nah, just a couple of US Vogues that are taking up space. I dunno, I don't foresee it doubling their value in a few years and I don't have any affection for their recent issues anyway (I will cry a river if somebody stole my Nylon Paris issue or Vogue Italia with Sasha.) Maybe they won't even be worth the paper they are printed on. Hey, I won't bash Vogue US just because it's so fashionable to do that right now ha ha. I still like US Vogue, it's accessible and easy to read. Plus, not as embarrassing to carry around compared to, say Cosmo or a Bazaar with Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson on the cover...

Re: celebs who are deserving of a cover (which I presume is a Vogue US cover because anybody with an overbearing publicist can get an Elle/Bazaar it seems), I think that even if Vogue is so commercial and populist now, it still tries to exude that snotty, only A-list Hollywood prom queens are deserving of a cover. And those "deserving" happen to be the same celebs that are being rotated every month who happen to sell magazines and movies they share top billing in, as well as really good PR (untainted by scandal + a couple of acting nominations or if not, critically acclaimed performances and movies) never mind if style is the last thing you associate with them.

I think that's why some people are put off by Kate Bosworth: She has been around for a long time, is not a movie critics darling (nobody foresees Oscar nomination), Orlando fangirls still hate the hell out of her, she gets bad press for her rumored eating disorder and coke habit, has mostly played arm-candy roles in forgettable movies as opposed to so-called acting roles and the past couple of years has been seen more in paparazzi pics than movies. Compare her with another so-called controversial cover choice like Jennifer Hudson who won an Oscar on her debut movie that was also a hit, also a fresh face at that time, had the hype as a powerhouse talent and had the potential to take Vogue to a different type of reader. Jennifer Hudson was in fact a very logical cover choice. But yes, Kate Bosworth had more style and can pose better.

As for models in Vogue, I think that Vogue US is very cautious about the models they choose. Because lately, it seems that one needs a very extensive resume to be featured on the pages. Because they need to cater to middle america, they also pick out the most familiar looking ones (numerous campaigns whose ads have been featured in their pages), if not the celeb-like ones (Gisele, Natalia and the 90s supers).

 

[sweetpop]

I full-heartedly agree with most of the posts in this thread, especially the posts made recently by Luxx and yaylil. Looking at the choice of either putting a celebrity or a model- from all aspects, each side has got valid reasons. Like everyone said, obviously, not everyone knows so much about the fashion industry/the people behind the power of fashion as members here do, and since we hear about celebrities everyday, it’s those people many people who aren’t-in-the-know about fashion hear about. Browsing through the newsstand, if a familiar celebrity face stands out, it’s more likely that the person is going to flip through and possibly purchase the magazine. Sadly, I think our world is obsessed with gossip of the rich and famous; something a lot of people can only dream about or read in a magazine. I guess, celebrity face= something new to read about, a new ‘archaeological find’, and besides, sometimes I get the feeling people who are visibly clutching a Vogue in the streets think of themselves as being much more sophisticated and stylish than if they were clutching a purely gossip saturated magazine. *shrugs*
A previous post by ***Bianca*** said that she didn’t mind seeing celebrities on magazine covers such as Elle, W etc… I don’t mind them on those covers either! But with more serious fashion magazines, models sit better with me. Clothes that are designed to be seen first on the runway, that are presented at various fashion weeks are displayed by models, not celebrities such as actors and sports champions etc. To me, having a model on the cover, gives me the impression that the focus is much more on the fashion instead of the celebrity who is dressed in the high-end-of-the-spectrum clothes.

For fashion magazines such as Vogue and Harpers etc, I still strongly believe that to be able to grace a fashion cover like that; to be chosen, you should be a model; a strong, confident emanating figure; isn’t that why it’s such a big thing to be on the front of magazines like that? Because it is difficult to be at the top of the modeling business, and when you finally have that big break, you can show it off. In a way, being the face of a rather sophisticated fashion magazine for a month (or more) is a model’s ‘reward’ for standing out in the crowd of many, it’s a shame when actresses and what nots (*ahem* Paris Hilton, just because she can afford the clothes she’s wearing, doesn’t mean she has to be on the cover!) replace them.