Tell Anna Wintour How To Improve / Revamp US Vogue

[Spike413]

I don't know if you don't need to know s**t (what is s**t? ) about photography but what I'm sure you need is to learn to read well 'cause I wrote about TRENDS in photography, not photography.

Vogue US has always been that way, In the 80's the most of the covers were close-ups of models, the same set, the same aestethic ... so what? it was still of the queen of the magazines. your lack of knowledge is evident.




I don't think Anna Wintour is worried about that, US Vogue is still the best selling fashion magazine. B)

I'll break my post down for you, my comment was saying that one need not know anything about photography in any capacity whatsoever (including trends, since you missed that the first time) I was hoping people would understand that trends in photography would fall under a giant umbrella category of photography as a whole (hence my original statement). You either missed it or decided to ignore it to prove your own point.

Honestly though, it's a splitting hairs sort of situation and I really do hope it goes no further than this.

Now, no one is debating how well Vogue sells. They could probably unearth a long-dead corpse, dress it in Lacroix and still have subscribers (in a sick way, it would attract an entirely new reader). Vogue is the queen of magazines for two reasons, because it has the most comprehensive coverage of fashion and because it is called VOGUE, it's rein has nothing to do with it's amazing editorial/photographic content.

As for my lack of knowledge about Vogue past, I was only born in the mid 80's so, yeah, I have no idea what Vogue looked like back then. In pointing out that it was so similar to how it is today, you've only proven the point that it's time to try something new and interesting.

What I, and I believe many others here are saying, is that we're tired of seeing the same old thing season after season when one of the main reasons we even look through fashion magazines is to see the next great thing. Bottom line, we (and I realize I'm taking liberties here) find it boring, it's that simple. You don't need to understand why or agree with it, but you also don't need to constantly try and justify your (sometimes unclear) points to people who disagree with you.

(And I may be assuming to much here, but I believe you know what s**t is supposed to represent on a message board )

 

[Joseph26]

Now, no one is debating how well Vogue sells. They could probably unearth a long-dead corpse, dress it in Lacroix and still have subscribers (in a sick way, it would attract an entirely new reader).

LOL, it would be the opposite way around, if they do that then people (normal/average people) would prefer to buy INStyle American readers want to see easy images, that's why the pompous Marie antoinette cover flopped.

As for my lack of knowledge about Vogue past, I was only born in the mid 80's so, yeah, I have no idea what Vogue looked like back then.

now I understand

http://www.fashion-iconography.net/Covers-VogueUS.htm

^

we're tired of seeing the same old thing season after season when one of the main reasons we even look through fashion magazines is to see the next great thing..

a) how anyone can be tired of one magazine if there are 100 more where your dreams can come true?

b) you've said it all, "fashion magazines", fashion is about clothes, not photography, I would understand you if Anna publishes the same outfits every month but they are the new of the new so maybe what you need is American Photo or PHOTO, they are dedicated to photography including tons of fashion photography, check it out.

http://www.photo.fr/

(And I may be assuming to much here, but I believe you know what s**t is supposed to represent on a message board )

I really don't know does it mean "shout"? like saying "shout your mouth"? shoot? maybe meaning "I don't like that photoshoot!"?

 

[Spike413]

LOL, it would be the opposite way around, if they do that then people (normal/average people) would prefer to buy INStyle American readers want to see easy images, that's why the pompous Marie antoinette cover flopped.



now I understand

http://www.fashion-iconography.net/Covers-VogueUS.htm

^




a) how anyone can be tired of one magazine if there are 100 more where your dreams can come true?

b) you've said it all, "fashion magazines", fashion is about clothes, not photography, I would understand you if Anna publishes the same outfits every month but they are the new of the new so maybe what you need is American Photo or PHOTO, they are dedicated to photography including tons of fashion photography, check it out.

http://www.photo.fr/




I really don't know does it mean "shout"? like saying "shout your mouth"? shoot? maybe meaning "I don't like that photoshoot!"?

Normal, average people in middle America aren't Vogue's target audience. Normal, average people read Cosmo, Instyle and all of those types of magazines for their fashion fix. Vogue is for people who love fashion and as such, may want to see something groundbreaking from time to time, not every month, but sporadically, ya know? I find it incredibly appropriate that you use normal/average as synonyms for boring and repetitive.....it's kind of telling isn't it. I also find it utterly offensive that you have the nerve to make claims as to what Americans want to see....

Now, I'm positive that you're choosing not to understand any of the things I and others have repeatedly tried to say, you couldn't possibly be that dense. Putting the clothes in the exact same format every issue not only looks boring but makes the clothes seem boring as well. They are always styled the same way, presented the same way and therefore start to look just as monotonous as the photos themselves. As someone who lives and breathes fashion, I detest when I open Vogue and see brand new pieces looking lifeless, uninteresting and devoid of any personality whatsoever. I'm not saying it's all the time that I feel that way, but it's more often then not.

And btw, s**t is just a semi-polite way of expressing the word sh*t without offending anyone or compromising the guidelines of the forum....

 

[russh_kris_z]

isnt it in america normal average people is their target? anna wants to be mainstream.. its sad but she wants to sell its not like paris vogue ..

 

[kissmesweet]

She does want it to be mainstream, that is probably the reason why she's going so... commercial.

I just think that Anna Wintour has used some great photographers: Steven Meisel, Annie Leibovitz... but she has not used them to their full potential.
As well as her cast of models, some originality would be nice.

 

[J'ador-DioR]

The revamping of US Vogue will only begin once Wintour re-signs

 

[green.tea]

is there somewhere to check out how well each cover sold?

 

[MissMagAddict]

is there somewhere to check out how well each cover sold?

I don't know about this year so far...but for US Vogue 2006 Jennifer Aniston April was the best selling & Drew Barrymore Feb was the worst...

According to Forbes the top sellers for celebrity mag covers are...

1. Jennifer Aniston
2. Brad Pitt
3. Scarlett Johansson
4. Angelina Jolie
5. Reese Witherspoon

These are also the same names you see on the covers of Fashion/Special interest mags...all of the women (except Aniston) on this list have had a major cover (elle, vogue, bazaar) this year & Brad has had V, Details, Interview, etc...

 

[beatrice_neumann]

i think we should all mail in letters. oh, and i should be on the cover, something like this:
Please Do Not Quote Images. Click On Above Link To See Image.

How about simply not buying it?
That always helps.

 

[Dkammern]

i think the problem with Vogue USA is not being commercial, after all, someone has to be! people often talk about commercial and mainstream as a bad thing! yet in my opinion there's nothing wrong with it.

the big issue chez Anna Wintour is that she has restircted her choices to a very reduced number of collaborators. three photographers, two models, and one designer. Mybe it's just a way of assuring she will have the Vogue-conservative look she has kept for many years, and be therefor appealing to the conservative upper-east-side mothers who want her daughters too look like Trentini, and see pics by Lebovitz (who has done portraits of queen elisabetho, and who wear Osccar de la Renta head to toe.
i understand that she doesnt wanna put black transvestites on her cover (unlike the great cover of vogue paris ) if she thinks that controversy is not what Vogue usa should be delivering.

anna wants to be mainstream.. its sad but she wants to sell its not like paris vogue ..

I would NEVER dare to say that vogue paris doesnt want to sell as much as USA. It's just two different strategies of approaching the audience. Maybe in paris they think it's better that people would see paris hilton on vogue and hate it, yet be tempted to buy it just out of curiosity; while the strategy for the US is to make something popular among the higher levers in society, which as we know, will be bindly followed by the rest of the people.

 

[Tinsley V]

^ Vogue is supposed to be high fashion not commercial
If somebody wants commercial and sellable then they have Glamour or Lucky

Vogue is supposed to be showcasing the best of the best in terms of innovation and looking forward in fashion photography and art

 

[SnejanaIsMyMuse]

Lol wonderful photo.I want to find whoever threw that at her and shake their hand.

I think the only thing we can look forward to is Anna quitting or being fired.Then maybe we can have our prayers answered and for once Vogue Us will be on par with its foreign sisters.

 

[Dkammern]

tinsley v high fashion (as i understand it) can also be considered for it's quality and accuracy. commercial doesnt necessarily mean mass-production or unelaborated. commercial is something that will appeal to a certain kind of people.
we have to consider that not everybody knows about latest trends, new designers, edgy photographers, and so on... some are just not looking for strong artistic statements.
i am sure many girls and women just open the vogue pages looking for a beautiful feminine dress that would make them dream, and anna know how to chose those perfectly

(i have to agree with the people who said the paper quality is terrible! why not just fire ALT and invest what they'd save on better paper!!)

SneajaIMM, i read in an interview some time ago that the two editors before anna were fired quite unexpectedly (one of them being vreeland, and the other one... cant remember ) but she didnt seem so scared about it... it makes me think of the devil wears prada movie and Miranda's "list"

 

[yalil]

Anna Wintour will continue doing whatever she is doing as long as she is selling magazines, getting advertising money and has this reputation as arbiter of fashion. I don't even think she needs to sell magazines, because I believe the bulk of the income generated is from ads anyway.

As long as she shows advertisers numbers and she convinces them that these numbers are people who actually buy the clothes she features as opposed to people who just buy magazines because they like to look at artistic edits and good models but barely buy designer fashion, she will continue to be Vogue editor. And in this country, it is my opinion that those who actually buy the bulk of designer fashion regularly and in huge amounts are conservative, country club ladies who will probably be appalled at all the nudity in Vogue Italia/Paris and will probably wonder "where are the clothes in this magazine?". They are not the type of people who will take risks. They want catalogs! Question still remains: Do you guys think you buy more designer fashion than some 45 year old lady who plays golf all day at some chi-chi country club who goes to charity fund-raisers in the evening every day of the week? Will this busy lady appreciate looking at black and white edits (can't see the real color of the dress!), edits where photographers are manipulating the contrasts etc and edits where the models are in bathtub or something and all wet or posed all twisty and in a helicopter? These ladies want to see clothes as they are so they can decide right there and then if they want it. They want a catalog. I think the only creativity you can really do is make Caroline Trentini jump. At least you still see how the clothes look on her body.

Europe is just culturally different from the US. Besides, the euro is stronger and maybe designer fashion is more attainable on a regular basis to a younger, more forward thinking audience? I don't know.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Why do you think she gets the ads?

I don't even think she needs to sell magazines, because I believe the bulk of the income generated is from ads anyway.

She wants the $$$ Walmart pays for their ads - which they would only print in a mag lots of people buy, and at the same time she wants to retain the credibility required for having the high end ads.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Anna Wintour will continue doing whatever she is doing as long as she is selling magazines, getting advertising money and has this reputation as arbiter of fashion. I don't even think she needs to sell magazines, because I believe the bulk of the income generated is from ads anyway.

As long as she shows advertisers numbers and she convinces them that these numbers are people who actually buy the clothes she features as opposed to people who just buy magazines because they like to look at artistic edits and good models but barely buy designer fashion, she will continue to be Vogue editor. And in this country, it is my opinion that those who actually buy the bulk of designer fashion regularly and in huge amounts are conservative, country club ladies who will probably be appalled at all the nudity in Vogue Italia/Paris and will probably wonder "where are the clothes in this magazine?". They are not the type of people who will take risks. They want catalogs! Question still remains: Do you guys think you buy more designer fashion than some 45 year old lady who plays golf all day at some chi-chi country club who goes to charity fund-raisers in the evening every day of the week? Will this busy lady appreciate looking at black and white edits (can't see the real color of the dress!), edits where photographers are manipulating the contrasts etc and edits where the models are in bathtub or something and all wet or posed all twisty and in a helicopter? These ladies want to see clothes as they are so they can decide right there and then if they want it. They want a catalog. I think the only creativity you can really do is make Caroline Trentini jump. At least you still see how the clothes look on her body.

Europe is just culturally different from the US. Besides, the euro is stronger and maybe designer fashion is more attainable on a regular basis to a younger, more forward thinking audience? I don't know.

And how do you explain that the 60s and 70s Vogue managed to be both great catalogs for wealthy people and masterpieces at the same time?

Like has been said many times - Lucky can sell to the masses for CondeNast, Vogue is the flagship. It should be held to a far higher artistic standard, while be relieved of some of the pandering to the masses duty.

 

[yalil]

60s and 70s= Age of Flower people, hippies, peace-niks, nude colonies, LSD. Different, more open and relatively liberal time and generation. What's the target circulation then as compared to now? It could have quintupled or something. How was the celebrity culture then? No internet therefore less competition and more captive audience. Apples and Oranges.

I do abhor the fact that these people are businessmen and have the generation of money as their primary goal and the education of their audience as their least priority. We live in a materialistic (could probably rival the 80s) and celebrity driven society. The way US economy is mapped out now is to have everybody buy, buy, buy. That is unfortunately the driving force in Vogue: get everybody to buy either the magazine (by featuring celebs) or buy the clothes (by featuring catalog-like edits with country club ladies as target and perpetuating the myth that Anna Wintour is the arbiter of fashion in this world). Nope, an upstart like Lucky can't do it (no machinery, no cred, young 20-30 year old target market: that is not the masses what with the US being an aging population...).

 

[kasper!]

hire a new creative director and worked with some other photographers like Tim Walker etc.....

this is the simplest way to revamp this trash mag

 

[iluvjeisa]

60s and 70s= Age of Flower people, hippies, peace-niks, nude colonies, LSD. Different, more open and relatively liberal time and generation. What's the target circulation then as compared to now? It could have quintupled or something. How was the celebrity culture then? No internet therefore less competition and more captive audience. Apples and Oranges.

I do abhor the fact that these people are businessmen and have the generation of money as their primary goal and the education of their audience as their least priority. We live in a materialistic (could probably rival the 80s) and celebrity driven society. The way US economy is mapped out now is to have everybody buy, buy, buy. That is unfortunately the driving force in Vogue: get everybody to buy either the magazine (by featuring celebs) or buy the clothes (by featuring catalog-like edits with country club ladies as target and perpetuating the myth that Anna Wintour is the arbiter of fashion in this world). Nope, an upstart like Lucky can't do it (no machinery, no cred, young 20-30 year old target market: that is not the masses what with the US being an aging population...).

Vogue was at its peak during the 60s and 70s, and early 80s. But it was also far less artistically compromising before Diana Vreeland than it is now.

Now, CondeNast doesn't have just Vogue - it also has Allure, W, Glamour, Self, TeenVogue and Lucky. Why - again - why - should Vogue have to stoop to pandering to the masses when that is the sole purpose of Glamour, Self and Lucky? Are you saying that the wealthy 40+ population buy magazines because they want to know more about Rene Zellweger? Do they feel sublimely infused with power when they open their catalog and see walmart ads?

Vogue as it is now is trying to do two things and although it might keep the magazine in good standing financially, pulling it in two equally deplorable directions eradicates its entire purpose.

 

[fashionistasista]

Why do you think she gets the ads?



She wants the $$$ Walmart pays for their ads - which they would only print in a mag lots of people buy, and at the same time she wants to retain the credibility required for having the high end ads.

American magazines actually get most of their income on the cover price and subscriptions... which is a funny thing

in other countries, such as australia, advertising is the ONLY thing that balances the bank - we dont have that high-an-amount of circulation so relying on cover price would bankrupt all of our publications.

sorry - edit: just to the last thing that you said iluvjeisa - i think its just because people think 'vogue' and that title rings to mean the best of the best. Vogue is trying to cash in on the money that middle america will spend on 'higher end' drooling, things they cant afford but like to escape to once a month. lol they are basically being greedy trying to get allure et al's advertising. also, management at conde must love the sales its getting in return so i think anna would get the sack if she pulled the title back to being quite artistic and high end. truth be told most of middle america wouldnt read it... they would then turn to glamour and allure.