UK Vogue May 2023 by Adama Jalloh

[Deleted member 116957]

Enlighten us please. It seems you know what true diversity and genuine diversity is. I'm curious. Maybe you should apply at Vogue to be their diversity and inclusion director ... I miss skinny models on Vogue covers

Umm. Okay my point is that these covers are a pathetic attempt at actual diversity. I’m saying that the magazine can’t pretend to be diverse when it truly isn’t. I think these covers are dreadful.

 

[Hchloe]

I knew the comments would be a mess when saw the covers!

 

[YourMonster]

People who try to gatekeep fashion magazines are weird. It's nice and refreshing to see something different from Vogue- but I guess people will never be satisfied. Edward puts models on the cover and no one says anything but when he does something like this then it's all "omg stop shoving diversity in our faces"

 

[MON]

You know you're losing your point when you start raising counterintuitive arguments.

No one knows what true and/or genuine diversity is because that, in itself, is not set in stone. Our society is ever-changing (fast paced at that) and what may be fully diverse now may no longer hold true by the next month.

However, what I know is that THIS and whatever they're doing in UK Vogue is not genuine diversity. There's a thin line between tokenism and diversity. That line has been crossed years ago.

 

[Ivanity86]

but the meaning of these covers? I've been spending my money on vintage Vogue for two years, it's all so boring and uninteresting, Vanity Fair, Vogue us, not to mention Vogue Paris and Italy, Vogue uk sometimes makes nice covers but this 2023 is a disaster, not to mention shared editorials, all forgettable

 

[tigerrouge]

If you are a potential consumer of a commercial product, you get to have opinions about the product - why you will or won't buy it, and how well its marketing strategy works for you.

A fashion magazine is a commercial product, and its cover is a marketing strategy.

As people have already said, we can debate long and hard about what every cover means - but turn the page, and everything is aimed at selling overpriced products that nobody needs.

The cover - the face of Vogue - might change its expression from time to time, but the heart of Vogue never skips a beat, with month after month of advertising, designed to incentivise levels of spending/consumption that wouldn't be regarded as average. Everything else in the world of magazines is secondary to the spend.

We're all aware of how companies have used sex to sell things. At other times, advertising has almost approached art in its sophistication. The current method is manipulating social conscience as a way of persuading people to feel good about spending their money in a certain direction, but bad about doing it in some other direction.

Every part of the media relies upon you taking things at face value, and if questions arise, that you can be shamed out of discussing the multiple agendas present in every calculated move.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

Media like Condé Nast and Disney are really crossing the line, and their goal will be same: scoring all the money they can because new generations are not interested to consume their products, and they're affraid of loosing their once big reputation names. But, they don't even care to loose their identity for the love of Gen Z and modern society. I can't believe all the dark jokes of Zoolander became real one day. We're living in such a terrible comedy.

 

[KoV]

If you are a potential consumer of a commercial product, you get to have opinions about the product - why you will or won't buy it, and how well its marketing strategy works for you.

A fashion magazine is a commercial product, and its cover is a marketing strategy.

As people have already said, we can debate long and hard about what every cover means - but turn the page, and everything is aimed at selling overpriced products that nobody needs.

The cover - the face of Vogue - might change its expression from time to time, but the heart of Vogue never skips a beat, with month after month of advertising, designed to incentivise levels of spending/consumption that wouldn't be regarded as average. Everything else in the world of magazines is secondary to the spend.

We're all aware of how companies have used sex to sell things. At other times, advertising has almost approached art in its sophistication. The current method is manipulating social conscience as a way of persuading people to feel good about spending their money in a certain direction, but bad about doing it in some other direction.

Every part of the media relies upon you taking things at face value, and if questions arise, that you can be shamed out of discussing the multiple agendas present in every calculated move.

How do I cosign every word of this?

 

[MON]

If you are a potential consumer of a commercial product, you get to have opinions about the product - why you will or won't buy it, and how well its marketing strategy works for you.

A fashion magazine is a commercial product, and its cover is a marketing strategy.

As people have already said, we can debate long and hard about what every cover means - but turn the page, and everything is aimed at selling overpriced products that nobody needs.

The cover - the face of Vogue - might change its expression from time to time, but the heart of Vogue never skips a beat, with month after month of advertising, designed to incentivise levels of spending/consumption that wouldn't be regarded as average. Everything else in the world of magazines is secondary to the spend.

We're all aware of how companies have used sex to sell things. At other times, advertising has almost approached art in its sophistication. The current method is manipulating social conscience as a way of persuading people to feel good about spending their money in a certain direction, but bad about doing it in some other direction.

Every part of the media relies upon you taking things at face value, and if questions arise, that you can be shamed out of discussing the multiple agendas present in every calculated move.

I concur, with emphasis on the sentences in boldface.

 

[SLFC]

The prejudices of some people on this forum and the ableism in this thread is a bit much.

 

[phungnam96]

Look at what Chinese Vogue did last year’s March, a sublime example of how fashion magazine should portrait people of minorities. What Edward is doing is insincere and unflattering.

 

[Bertrando3]

Interesting to see that there are way way more negative reactions here to these covers in comparison to last month's plus size models' cover... lol
Either way people on Instagram will eat this up. It's a cover made to be liked because ''everyone needs their moment to shine'' type of thought.
Another day, another woke cover, another ''moment'' for Edward : everything feels forced. I agree he's doing a Benetton guidebook for his covers.

 

[mikel]

Media like Condé Nast and Disney are really crossing the line, and their goal will be same: scoring all the money they can because new generations are not interested to consume their products, and they're affraid of loosing their once big reputation names. But, they don't even care to loose their identity for the love of Gen Z and modern society. I can't believe all the dark jokes of Zoolander became real one day. We're living in such a terrible comedy.

In what way is Disney exactly crossing the line?

 

[phungnam96]

In what way is Disney exactly crossing the line?

I guess that Disney is casting more poc for live action remake. I don’t like Disney because what they have done with Disney+ shows their true colour.

 

[thenewclassic]

I don't really care either way honestly, I wish the covers were a bit more exciting (and I'm happy to see Selma) but this is no different to me than it being some other celebrity I don't care about instead really. I'm just curious if it actually impacts sales significantly? Or maybe the reaction it generates (good and bad) is enough for them..

 

[Deleted member 141523]

Look at what Chinese Vogue did last year’s March, a sublime example of how fashion magazine should portrait people of minorities. What Edward is doing is insincere and unflattering.

It's in the news they cast a kid with Down Syndrome for a Peter Pan role.

 

[crmsn]

This issue's already on sale. Can someone here post a review on the page count and editorials?

 

[KoV]

It's in the news they cast a kid with Down Syndrome for a Peter Pan role.

Come on, how is that crossing the line? That's the exact kind of diversity that I think can have a meaningful impact on kids who have disabilities. Representation is good, it's just when it has a sanctimonious, virtue-signaling, performative edge to it (which I think Vogue and the fashion industry in general is often guilty of) that I think it warrants criticism. There's no reason why a lost boy in the Peter Pan story couldn't have Down Syndrome and as far as I know Disney wasn't all "look at us! how incredible are we to cast an actor with a disability?!" That would be gross.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

Come on, how is that crossing the line? That's the exact kind of diversity that I think can have a meaningful impact on kids who have disabilities. Representation is good, it's just when it has a sanctimonious, virtue-signaling, performative edge to it (which I think Vogue and the fashion industry in general is often guilty of) that I think it warrants criticism. There's no reason why a lost boy in the Peter Pan story couldn't have Down Syndrome and as far as I know Disney wasn't all "look at us! how incredible are we to cast an actor with a disability?!" That would be gross.

The problem it's doesn't feel genuine. Like they're doing with every movie they release witht different subjects that they ignored for long time ago. Must be good, of course, but we're living in times were that's the main topic. I will never know if they make it for a change in society or the money and likes in social media. These are companies, in general they're not interested in what you are but they are with your money and loyalty. It's capitalism. What can we expect from they? Decades ago they used sex to sell. Now they're using inclusivity, which was always needed, but doesn't smells good coming from big corporations.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

^ Also I remember the case of the most shocking publicity ever made in the 90s: the picture of LGBT David Kirby dying surrounded by his family. At the time there was so much noise about it. Some magazines refused to publish the ad in their March issues, but you can see it in Vogue and Vanity Fair from 1992. Church activist were angry because the picture looks like the painting of Christ dying. Some LGBT groups protest that they were using AIDS crisis for selling more cloths. The family Kirby ended the controversy saying that they never feel used by the Benetton company, but instead they used the brand for introducing the raw reality, ignored by media, about those days. Should be that way, no? We should use these plataforms to express ourselfs, but they shouldn't use us to having more clients. We are the voice that matter, not these companies. I never liked Disney in my life because always noticed how commercial they are and how they uses values to sell. The reason isn't new, the subjects are.