The Official Men's Magazine Thread

[Fiercification]

Too bad, I'm quite surprised...the issue looked like it had good reading content US GQ is 8.30 Euro here, which is honestly too much and for so little content...

 

[Flashbang]

Oh geez...The contents are truly interesting as Fiercefication said. Ugh and I dislike outdoor shot for GQ.

 

[IAmLordZen]

I almost bought the issue today but decided against it because it's ONLY 104 PAGES. Also, in the stack of about 15 magazines, they all had the same cover, so I think that rules out the multiple covers.


The thing I don't understand is why on earth GQ is making their issues so small? They did great last year when other magazines floundered. Surely they could come up with something more substantial when we're paying $4.50 per issue. Very, very disappointing, GQ.

104 pages? That's just absurd! Well anyway they have thick issues when fall season arrives (September) as there are so much ads. But still, yeah, this is a drawback. Miranda's very hot though!

 

[jal718]

Early winter issues are always small but as I think that advertisers are getting wise to the fact that US magazines generally suck now and are not advertising that much. If they wanted to sell more magazines, they should have put Miranda on the cover!

 

[Gary101]

I subscribe to GQ US and it ends very soon and I won't be renewing it. The quality has gone downhill so much not to mention I never received the September issue and the issues are arriving to me when they have been on the shelves weeks. Contacting the staff about it gets you nowhere. Majority of the time you are ignored. They really need to step their act up.

Isn't this Depp cover a reprint from Vanity Fair last year?

 

[VogueGirl8910]

I don't know, but who shoot this cover is by Patrick Demarchelier.

 

[KoV]

The Vanity Fair shoot was by François-Marie Banier, so I guess it's not a re-print from that shoot.


GQ has had some excellent issues in 2009 (The one with Justin Timberlake on the cover comes to mind) and they've done record business this past year which is why I find it so weird that the last two issues are so thin. Also, maybe I'm dreaming, but it seems like they've raised the price from $3.50 to $4.50 in the last few months. All my favorite magazines have been well under 200 pages lately and yet the prices keep climbing. It's ridiculous.

 

[Gary101]

^To make up for loss of advertising sadly.

 

[KoV]

^To make up for loss of advertising sadly.

Then why not just lower the price advertisers have to pay. Then more ad-space will be bought, the issues will be bigger, and I'll be happy to shell out more money to buy the issue. Also, even if no one buys more ad space, they should have more editorial content.

 

[tigerrouge]

Lowering the price of advertising space can be the start of a proper decline; what seems to make sense in the short-term can often ruin things over the long-term. Salespeople who can't think beyond the commission they're going to get that month love the idea of anything that brings instant results, but for anyone planning beyond that, it can be a real step backwards.

 

[KoV]

Lowering the price of advertising space can be the start of a proper decline; what seems to make sense in the short-term can often ruin things over the long-term. Salespeople who can't think beyond the commission they're going to get that month love the idea of anything that brings instant results, but for anyone planning beyond that, it can be a real step backwards.

But surely there are creative ways to do it. Architectural Digest, for example, has been creative with the advertisements. Clive Christian and the film "The Young Victoria" did a combined multiple page advertisement using the history of Clive Christian and how Queen Victoria gave them a medal for excellence or something. See? I remember it from well over a month ago because it was innovative advertising and it caught my eye. And yet the price was split for what was effectively a long advertisement for both. I don't know as much as I'd like to about the magazine publishing biz, but encouraging advertisers to try new, effective, brilliant way of advertising would be a smart move, methinks.

 

[tigerrouge]

I think the fastest way to get your answer would be to walk onto a sales floor somewhere - full of people prone to dubious behaviour as their livelihood depends on their financial performance and thinking up new ways to improve it - and tell them all about this completely fresh information, they might even have some ideas of their own to share with you that you'll not have heard before.

 

[KoV]

Sarcasm doesn't look good on you dear.

 

[tigerrouge]

Considering the motivations of a sales team, if they could, they would be doing these things already. It's just that the enthusiam of your pronouncements made me picture the scene of someone actually going up to these people and telling them this, when they're the ones trying everything they can to keep the money coming in.

We hear a lot about job losses on the editorial side of things, but never that much about the squeeze on sales, and what it's like for people there - it's a pressurised job to begin with, and the people I know are currently under several times as much strain as they would normally operate under. But everything looks so easy to people on the outside. I suppose that happens with everything - it's easy for anyone to imagine how the job can be done better - but being the person who gets the job done is an entirely different thing.

 

[Mirik]

GQ Russia February 2010 Rihanna by Michael Thompson

reprint from GQ USA Jan


gq.ru, forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2437914#Post2437914

 

[tarsha]

^ i've seen a cover and it looks good in print

 

[Festat]

I'm so tired of Rihanna.

 

[SaidTed]

I'm so tired of Rihanna.

Me too! she's become so one-dimensional

 

[jemina]

^^and annoying

 

[Annu]

^oh yes.