US Vogue December 2020 : Harry Styles by Tyler Mitchell

[KoV]

Also worth noting is that even a single month of high sales, high engagement, visibility in the media, and increased page views online can positively impact the magazine and pay dividends from an advertising standpoint as well. Even if you don’t convert many of your cover star’s Stans into regular readers, you can leverage their temporary engagement into $$$ and brand building.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

This issue is already in the archive, way before of the release of the january edition.

 

[Phuel]

Frankly, I don’t even fault the casting, celebrity or model. The times we’re living in will dictate the personalities/looks; and we’re living in bland, basic and boring times in terms of creative standards. My problem has always been the lessers chosen to showcase these individuals: They’re all subpar in creativity and technical skills, let alone the importance of fashion-storytelling and worldbuilding. Whether photographers or stylists, they’re all at best mediocre and absolutely incapable of storytelling. Just take a quick gander at the Vintage Magazine section of this forum, and you’ll instantly understand the difference between masterful storytelling by strong photographers and stylists, as opposed to these lessers of the current era.

 

[Benn98]

...... and listed it before the November issue with Naomi was even available on their website.

This is sabotage!

 

[KoV]

Just saw an ebay listing for this issue, seller charging $60 plus $10 for shipping, and they’d already sold 285 copies and were nearly sold out. Another charging $45 plus $10 shipping and they’d already sold 1,112 copies. Keep in mind it’s $7.99 on newsstands. Crazy.

 

[Benn98]

This definitely looks set to be their best selling issue in years, and such a sleeper hit in a way because when it dropped I never imagined it would be this big. Everyone and their mum are mouthing off on the cover.

 

[KoV]

I expected a few right wing trolls to go after it, but I also didn’t anticipate *everyone* having so much to say. Have these people never heard of Bowie, Prince, etc.? Not saying Harry is their equal, but the womenswear inspired looks shouldn’t be *this* controversial. Just more evidence of the regression taking place outside the liberal bubble, I guess.

 

[Benn98]

I expected a few right wing trolls to go after it, but I also didn’t anticipate *everyone* having so much to say. Have these people never heard of Bowie, Prince, etc.? Not saying Harry is their equal, but the womenswear inspired looks shouldn’t be *this* controversial. Just more evidence of the regression taking place outside the liberal bubble, I guess.

LOL. I'd get it if it was some hypermasculine icon like Channing Tatum, who these nutters want to shield from 'the perverse homosexuals'. But come on, it was Harry Styles. He has been sort of blurring the lines for some time now, not even very convincingly but that's another conversation. Also finding it odd that nobody bats an eyelid when Billy Porter does it (oh of course, he's gay, so I guess some would consider it to be 'in his nature'), but what about Pharrell on GQ? Where were the outrage and the soapdish rants?
The dress wasn't even a matter of contention for me at all not because I'm liberal but because it's so commonplace in fashion. So I was amazed that everyone had such a strong opinion about it. But I suppose it was needed - sounds skeptical but one must see things for what they are.

 

[tigerrouge]

Everyone and their mum are mouthing off on the cover

And some of them are people old enough to remember Boy George and how beloved he was, and all those times in rock music where straight men got paid millions to wear more make-up and have bigger hair than many women did. And I hope they were sitting down when they first learned that men historically played women's roles on stage. It's a wonder how civilisation ever survived through any of that.

 

[Phuel]

I expected a few right wing trolls to go after it, but I also didn’t anticipate *everyone* having so much to say. Have these people never heard of Bowie, Prince, etc.? Not saying Harry is their equal, but the womenswear inspired looks shouldn’t be *this* controversial. Just more evidence of the regression taking place outside the liberal bubble, I guess.

LOL @ the suburban aunties clutching pearls over such a PG-rated vanilla stunt… :sigh: We’re at the point in pop culture when a pretty twink like James Charles is every tween girl’s most wished for BF, and their older sis is scrambling to cop the newest drop from their fantasy BFF Jeffrey Star. And corporate-engineered Harry wearing corporate-produced Gucci gowns on the cover of most commercial and mainstream Vogue at a time when gender-neutrality is proven profitable, is as tame and safe as Disney World but the prudes somehow faux-outrageous over it LOOOOL It’s hardly the risqué and career-risking taboos of hetero-heroes Brad Pitt and Kurt Cobain giving a colossal FU to the homophobic majority moviegoer and rock audiences alike by crossdressing (and it’s crossdressing then— none of this mass-approved gender-neutral politeness that gets you twitter-approved and SM followers). And with Prince and Bowie (and let’s also give some props to Philip Oakley and then-hetero Pete Burns while we're at it), their careers and their lives were at risk for their personal choice of style. That takes titanic balls to commit too, of which I don’t feel the kidz could fully understand how supremely defiant these trailblazing icons were for their hostile eras— not just for their fashion choices.

I’ve nothing against Harry: He’s so harmless and inoffensive as a singer and persona— and so lacking in any sexual energy, what possible reaction other than indifference could I muster for him… The likes of him and Selena… this generation is so bland, basic and boring how could anyone really be bothered to conjure a reaction other than a polite eyeroll at children attempting dressup??? (I suppose the trade off for a generation that’s supportive women/POC/LGBT is that they’re all puritan wussies that balk at the sight of a women’s bare nipple and a man's free-hanging dick…:sigh:...)

 

[Deleted member 141523]

this generation is so bland, basic and boring

this

 

[8eight]

This has arrived in the UK and London has sold out already.

 

[vogue28]

^A newsagents I rarely visit ended up being the one place I was able to find myself a copy! The owner informed me he had to place an order for the issue especially, because he'd had umpteen phone calls making requests for it. Not to mention the resale prices on eBay right now!

 

[tigerrouge]

I suppose we should be heartened that print magazines can still prove so desirable to people.

 

[Benn98]

You should see the daylight robbery rates being asked on Ebay. I briefly contemplated getting a copy then I changed my mind. Having seen the content on here I'll save my pennies for January. Quite backwards really when you consider January will likely be wafer-thin.
I'm not an ardent US Vogue collector anymore, I basically just buy issues I deem to be important/must-have.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

Tired of the girls asking for this cover in social media or ebay. They're writing in Vogue Spain Twitter "where is Harry's cover?" These girls may think that there's only one edition of Vogue, and every sister publication will reprint that cover. What the actual f#@k?!

 

[JPineapple]

This is funny because Edward really thought his december cover was going to be the most talked about of all the december issues. LOL.

Btw, here in Mexico the magazine is soldout too. I contemplated to buy my copy on ebay but my Vogue US dealer texted me and sold me 2 copies for 10 dollars.

 

[heyjaded]

I had to email the brazilian distributor to buy one. I got it for like 20 dollars shipping included. But they haven’t even received yet so I guess I’m only getting it next year lmao

 

[KoV]

This is selling on Amazon for $64 minimum, some listings are $135. What the hell?


Condé Nast should cut Candace Owens a check.

 

[mikel]

This is selling on Amazon for $64 minimum, some listings are $135. What the hell?


Condé Nast should cut Candace Owens a check.

Even better: shoot her for the next cover in a men’s suit.