Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by serendipity8777, Jun 21, 2018.
kevivkkelly1 on ebay
Besides the horrid cover, the 'Authentic. Accessible. Relevant' tagline has me reaching for the sick bucket
What on earth is happening with Fashion magazines!! Sigh.
What a mess of a cover. All three from this new EIC have been horrid. Great hire, Glamour!
It's heartbreaking for us long time fans. They're doubling down on stupid in their efforts to attract fickle millenials.
love kate but hate this new direction for glamour
This looks like a mugshot, and to make it even worse, they added that hideous layout.
Why did Anna approve this design makeover?
Yikes, this is atrocious! Looks like an awkward passport snapshot of Kate, who very recently covered GQ's comedy issue. So they're not even original.
Glamour always had the worst art direction of recent years. Would like to know who exactly is responsible for it.
I thought the coverline read 'the come dy issue'? Letters are too spaced too far apart. Are there English speaking people at this magazine????
wth is this?
Their new design never fails to make to laugh.
The fonts! The new Glamour reminds me of someone who just got Windows 3.1 and was dabbling with MS Paint. The title font is just so unprofessional-looking. Not to mention that Wingdings crap they have going on for the "Comedy" title. Which is the only thing that might make it pop on the newsstand, because the photo sure doesn't.
Based simply on their covers, I haven't seen anything that makes them accessible, authentic, or relevant. Woo, fall denim is here.
I do credit them for having different cover celebs than most fashion magazines, at least for the 1st 3 issues.
Yeah, I thought the Melissa cover was just a blip but the new editor is in her third issue and the covers look nothing better than a weekly newspaper's.
Is this magazine surviving to this """"restyling""""!?
They should go all the way with the redesign and give themselves a new name as well - because there's nothing glamorous about this version of the magazine.
Never mind fall denim, the real trend of the moment is for parroting feminism but actually churning out derivative articles with infantile design.
Why must so many women's magazines employ art direction that makes their front covers look no better than school pencilcases with stickers placed all over them?
But inside, they'll print cheerleading articles about how women can run the world. Well, deciding to visually advance from the kindergarten stage would be a start. Then I might have more respect for the pages their advice is printed on.
If I were a 15 year old tween, I'd probably champion the juvenilia of this magazine's layout. This looks like they're targeting 13-18 year-old, female-identified teenagers who read second-tier magazines whose covers frequently reprint pictures of not just other magazines, but sometimes getty images (for your reference, look up GoGirl!, one of the renowned teen magazines in Indonesia). Even the now deceased Teen Vogue looked a lot more sophisticated at times.
This is embarrassing and far too painful to look at! I honestly do not understand what Samantha Barry is thinking. I wonder if the general public likes the redesign? Are they aware Glamour's even still in print? The magazine is a shadow of its former self here. I've seen better passport photos, than that shot of Kate McKinnon. Sheesh!
PHOTOGRAPHS BY MIGUEL REVERIEGO
STYLED BY VANESSA CHOW
HAIR: LAURENT PHILIPPON
MAKEUP: CASSANDRA GARCIA
MANICURE: DEBORAH LIPPMANN
I didn't think it could get worse than the cover shot, but it did. Was she aiming for the Lara Stone look in every photo, or did they want her to pose that way? Not a single smile from a comedy issue?
I don't know where or with what demographic those graphics are supposed to be cool or modern.