Tell Anna Wintour How To Improve / Revamp US Vogue

[Joseph26]

Vogue needs to be much more like W.

if both magazines, W and Vogue US are the stars of the Conde Nast Group, why both magazines should be twins? that would be illogical, a biznes disaster.

these are two magazines, two different targets and that's it. that's the bussiness of the CondeNasters, so easy to understand.

Vogue US doesn't need to be like the others, it's intended to be how it is right now so I don't think Anna Wintour needs opinions. she is the best, we you Anna!

 

[JeanAvril]

we you Anna!

Speak for yourself.

 

[iluvjeisa]

The nature of the Hollywood star has changed dramatically from the mysterious, alluring, larger-than-life goddess (Garbo, Dietrich, Taylor, Vivien Leigh, Jean Harlow...) to the glorified cheerleader type. There are only a handful actresses with the kind of pull the old ones possessed - these days we're mostly just bombarded with the most easily lead/manipulated stars - and that goes for any kind of popular culture, really.

IMO Sasha and Snejana are more related to the movie star of the pre 70s than todays stars. Todays stars are just required to alter their shapes, keep face and talk prettily in interviews....it really is extraordinarily boring. So in a way, thank god for Angelina, Lindsay and Britney - at least they seem to be alive, not mere celebots...

 

[Joseph26]

So in a way, thank god for Angelina, Lindsay and Britney - at least they seem to be alive, not mere celebots...

I agree! I the trinity of the 00's, Britney + Paris + Lindsay, imagine they three on the Vogue cover ph'ed by Meisel

Speak for yourself.

 

[angel222]

#1.
The fashion models in Vogue today are not as beautiful or diverse as was in the past, i.e. 80s. Hollywood actresses who're less beautiful are on the covers, so they down dumb beauty standards for models who compete for editorials/covers. Anna has to bring back the genuinely beautiful models and give them cover time, and start using the best stylists and makeup artists to make models beautiful instead of clown editorials, more modern woman/girl street and high fashion looks.

#2.
Photography in Vogue has been stale for the last 10 years or more. Penn, Avedon, Chris von Wangenheim, John Stember, Albert Watson, Arthur Elgort, Sheila Metzner, and rest worked their incredible creatively on the most beautiful models. Now a days a fading Steven Meisel is out of creativity and the quality shows. Mario Testino takes amateurish, gaudy, and non-artistic photos, for some reason Anna thinks he is the best "celebrity photographer" in the world. Which shows Anna as having poor judgment about this man.

#3.
Just fire Anna Wintour because to make #1 and #2 be back in the heyday someone strong willed must fire her, and bring another strong willed editor in to not use the ugly actresses, and focus on shockingly beautiful girls in expensive clothes, shoes , jewelry, and locations.

 

[tigerrouge]

It's difficult to line US Vogue up against Vogue Italia or Vogue Paris, because the latter two magazines are bankrolled by their parent company, Conde Nast, to be vehicles of creativity for the industry, rather than to function as filtered-down interpretation of trends for a wider audience, as US Vogue does.

Circulation figures don't really factor into the performance of those two magazines, as they have a niche audience, and the advertising and product coverage in editorials are pitched accordingly.

But circulation figures do matter, when it comes to how US Vogue's performance is judged by its owners. Advertising revenue matters as well. That means appealling to the widest amount of readers possible, and offending as few of them as is reasonable.

US Vogue's job is to bring in the money, and it might even be said that the profit that this magazine brings in helps to keep those more 'creative' magazines alive and afloat. A best-selling but mundane US Vogue cover could be what makes an excitingly daring French Vogue cover possible. In other words, it's a necessary evil.

 

[KKnardi]

I have no problem with celebrities being on Vogue. But, when you are on the cover and the only reason you are famous is because you got played by your ex (Sienna Miller), that's when it gets on my nerves. So many great actresses deserved to be on that cover, most notably Meryl Streep. Has she ever been on a cover before? When you have chicks who suck at acting and style (in my opion) on the cover, then we have a problem.

the star of 'devil wears prada' on the cover of vogue? I can't really see that in front of me. sorry.

 

[JeanAvril]

the star of 'devil wears prada' on the cover of vogue? I can't really see that in front of me. sorry.

True. But I still think she deserves a cover.

 

[Harumi]

nope, as far as I know the hollywood stars are the icons of the fashion & style through the years, Greta Garbo, Marlene Deitrich, Veronica Lake, Bardot, Loren .................. in the 90's the Hollywood stars were replaced by the Supermodels, Cindy, Claudia .... but those Supermodels were really Super, nowadays I doubt anyone could be interested in what an aliened teen model can say, if they can say anything 'cause the most of them don't speak english so the Hollywood Stars rule again, like in the past, like always.

No. Movie stars had very little influence over the major fashion magazines until very recently. They were influential in setting standards of beauty, but they were not on the covers of magazines, nor were they modeling in the inside pages, nor were they high-fashion trend setters. Most of them were dressed by studio seamstresses who would loosely base their creations on the high fashion stuff published in magazines. They were total creations and their style and image was tightly controlled (with notable exceptions - Garbo, Hepburn, Del Rio and Dietrich were true originals).
The true fashion icons of the 40s-80s were photographers (before that illustrators), their fetish models, the legendary editrix, and the Balenciaga and Mainbocher-clad original socialites.

You are once again mistaking mainstream icons with fashion icons, but considering your worship of the current format of Vogue, it isn't surprising.

Also, supermodels existed before the 'Freedom video girls' era. Twiggy, Penelope Tree, Dovina, Jean Shrimpton, Lauren Hutton, Veruschka, anyone? Those girls were ubiquitous and they were fashion icons.
However, I'm sure all of that will fall in def ears

tigerrouge,you make a very interesting point.

 

[taben]

^ it's a pleasure to read what you have to say about this topic ! but as you said, it will fall in deaf ears...

 

[Belapuente]

I buy the American Vogue every now and then....I considered a subscription....but no.....

I think there is nothing new.......its almost like you know what you will see or somewhat imagine. No more glamour.....or maybe glamour is overdone.......

The magazine needs an uplift for sure. I read that Vogue Spain is leading in sales as far as the Vogues go. Spanish vogue shows new interesting, funky gadgets to enhance your life. They show accessories and comments on them that stick to your mind, and later you want to talk about it with someone, and maybe reference the picture too. Once I read an article there on how to style and dye your hair all over........very interesting.....

American Vogue has no real content about fashion nor anything.

 

[Yanka]

Retire!!!

 

[iluvjeisa]

It's difficult to line US Vogue up against Vogue Italia or Vogue Paris, because the latter two magazines are bankrolled by their parent company, Conde Nast, to be vehicles of creativity for the industry, rather than to function as filtered-down interpretation of trends for a wider audience, as US Vogue does.

Circulation figures don't really factor into the performance of those two magazines, as they have a niche audience, and the advertising and product coverage in editorials are pitched accordingly.

But circulation figures do matter, when it comes to how US Vogue's performance is judged by its owners. Advertising revenue matters as well. That means appealling to the widest amount of readers possible, and offending as few of them as is reasonable.

US Vogue's job is to bring in the money, and it might even be said that the profit that this magazine brings in helps to keep those more 'creative' magazines alive and afloat. A best-selling but mundane US Vogue cover could be what makes an excitingly daring French Vogue cover possible. In other words, it's a necessary evil.

That's a good point. But - and this is important - it is quite clear that BOTH American Vogue AND Vogue Paris were just far better during the 60s and 70s (and arguably the first couple of years of the 80s) than they have ever been since. By compartmentalizing in this way - giving up the commercial hope completely with Vogue Paris/Italia and giving up artistic hope with American Vogue - we can never have that best of both worlds combined into one perfect magazine.

Have you seen the American Vogue from the 70s? I know Grace Mirabella isn't held in great regard by the fashion community - but this is IMO a fallacy. During her time, well, during the first 10-12 years of her time, American Vogue produced some of the best art of the 20th century. Oh yes, and then a lot of people succumbed to AIDS in 1984-90, which pretty much pulled the rug from under the feet of the fashion industry (especially what was based in NY). American fashion lost its two greatest designers of the time to that epidemic (Halston and Perry Ellis), so I'd say that the American fashion industry is still suffering from the death of all those talented people, people who today should have been the more extreme counterparts to Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren.

Perhaps this is a reason that American Vogue can't become as great as it once was - the loss of the most creative of a generation, or perhaps it's the general trend to go hell bent for leather towards the commercial direction, at the same time as another branch of CN is pursuing the arty side. Of course, Vogue Paris is doing that pretty well compared to most mags.

 

[iluvjeisa]

No. Movie stars had very little influence over the major fashion magazines until very recently. They were influential in setting standards of beauty, but they were not on the covers of magazines, nor were they modeling in the inside pages, nor were they high-fashion trend setters. Most of them were dressed by studio seamstresses who would loosely base their creations on the high fashion stuff published in magazines. They were total creations and their style and image was tightly controlled (with notable exceptions - Garbo, Hepburn, Del Rio and Dietrich were true originals).
The true fashion icons of the 40s-80s were photographers (before that illustrators), their fetish models, the legendary editrix, and the Balenciaga and Mainbocher-clad original socialites.

And add to that, that the fashion mags did not have Garbo, Dietrich or Rita Hayworth on the covers - ever. Were these true movie stars always dressed by studio seamstresses??? Or was that just for the movies?

 

[ysljunkie]

Wow very interesting read I was just so bored a minute ago and now im hooked. IMO Us Vogue does its job as a fashion magazine for the US audience. I remember when I bought my first copy and was in complete shock that I could own the great editorials and advertisements, sure it was just a picture but having it made fashion all that more accessible. Id love to be able to have that feeling again but the truth is that Vogue has to sell and there is only a handful of people who would walk by the news stand in the US who would even know who Sasha or Gemma or Coco was compared to those who would not or who would even care. They have to compete with that copy of US weekly on the same shelf with the briteny pics sure they do it in a more reserved sophisticated way but its still gossip .I know girls who have bought the magazine who when asked if they know who Anna is they shrug and continue pointing out the “cute” dresses. I think it be great to put ANNA on the Vogue Paris or Italia staff and see if she could make some really artsy stuff. Now I buy US vogue less than five times a year and I would do a subscription but Id get pissed if one month I got one that I was just really disappointed with. I think at least with the other editions you get straight up fashion in a creative way on a grand scale ( and Im fine with that costing 20 bucks a pop) as opposed to the watered down glossy eds that are in US vogue. frankly I like the other editions because sometimes I feel like im reading fashion 101with the US edition-but in the end I think that is Vogue US’s job an purpose for the Us reader.

 

[Candice89102]

I agree! I the trinity of the 00's, Britney + Paris + Lindsay, imagine they three on the Vogue cover ph'ed by Meisel

Please tell me you're kidding

 

[Joseph26]

#1.
Anna has to bring back the genuinely beautiful models and give them cover time, and start using the best stylists and makeup artists to make models beautiful instead of clown editorials, more modern woman/girl street and high fashion looks.

that's the point, but it's not going to happen soon, why? the fashion Industry don't want Supermodels anymore, they are happy with the whole roster of weird looking models cause they know that those models don't appeal to the masses.

they got mad with the power of the Supermodels (the originals, of course), they were bigger than Vogue, bigger than the designers so they don't want that again, that would be a nightmare for them.

#2.
Photography in Vogue has been stale for the last 10 years or more. Penn, Avedon, Chris von Wangenheim, John Stember, Albert Watson, Arthur Elgort, Sheila Metzner, and rest worked their incredible creatively on the most beautiful models. Now a days a fading Steven Meisel is out of creativity and the quality shows. Mario Testino takes amateurish, gaudy, and non-artistic photos, for some reason Anna thinks he is the best "celebrity photographer" in the world. Which shows Anna as having poor judgment about this man.

I agree, Testino and Meisel are the most overrated photographers ever! I don't get what Tetsino does, really

 

[KKnardi]

to all: who would you like to substitute anna with then?

 

[style_expert]

why would Conde Nast fire or replace Anna Wintour I don't think anybody's feeling the need to improve US Vogue since it's one of the most profitable magazines running. And money is, sadly, what it is all about, in the end.

 

[Joseph26]

You are once again mistaking mainstream icons with fashion icons, but considering your worship of the current format of Vogue, it isn't surprising.

wrong!, I was talking about mainstream fashion, for decades and decades the High Fashion world was only for rich people, it was not like everyone could say "I'm bored, I wanna see the new Dior fashion Show on Tv" hello!

Singers and actors were the ones ruling fashion for the mainstream, like Madonna in the 80's, she was the trend maker, Michael Jackson, George Michael, Cyndi Lauper ....

it was until the phemomenum of the Supermodels that mainstream people started to pay attention to High Fashion, everyone was into fashion, Mtv, Vh1, there was a fashion revolution in the 90's, it's not a secret.

Also, supermodels existed before the 'Freedom video girls' era. Twiggy, Penelope Tree, Dovina, Jean Shrimpton, Lauren Hutton, Veruschka, anyone? Those girls were ubiquitous and they were fashion icons.

they were not Supermodels, and if they were then the Supermodels of the late 80's and early 90's were megaturbo-Supermodels 'cause there has to be a difference, the 90's Super were pop icons along with Madonna and Michael Jackson.

Dovima? Penelope Tree? ubiquitous? LOL!