US Vogue January 2020 : The 'Vogue Values of 2020' by Annie Leibovitz

[SophiaVB]

Marine Serre really blew up...

Don't really understand how the values are translating outside of an editorial in this particular issue

 

[Melancholybaby]

Look at the former insiders acting like they weren't complicit to the problem

I'm sorry but if there's one person in the magazine world who always tried to keep things at a certain standard, that's Fabien. He just can't be compared to the likes of Anna, Edward and the rest of the Conde and Hearst ilk.

 

[Lola701]

Ahem.....Fabien Baron letting loose.

Full interview, here:

WWD: That’s for sure.

F.B.: The issue is that magazines are where they are because of magazines.

WWD: So it’s not all outside forces? What did magazines do wrong?

F.B.: They wanted to be so tied up with the moment, with what’s going on with entertainment, with personalities, and then, so tied to Instagram. They attached themselves too much to an outside thing rather than remembering what they were about, so they became irrelevant in some degree. Actresses — you see them in a movie. Instagram is where you want to see the Kardashians, or on television; you don’t want to see them in magazines. Any picture of them, you’re going to see it on Instagram anyway.

Magazines have lost their point of view; they gave it up too early. I’m talking about the big ones. If you look at the way they were relative to now [which is] blue sky, little flowers, girl wearing a big skirt, a famous person from Hollywood. That became the formula for a lot of magazines. Supermarket fashion.

WWD: Any magazines in particular?

F.B.: I’m talking about big magazines in general.

WWD: What could big magazines in general have done to prevent this from happening?

F.B.: They should have stuck with fashion. They should have stuck with fashion. They should have made that the real core, the point of view. They should have sold the customer — the people who were buying magazines — fashion, real, real, real fashion, and in a big way. That’s what they should have done. Social media and Instagram, these things came up in the midst of magazines not being very powerful and not being very strong. So people flipped, they just shifted to that. The two could have lived [together]. All these small magazines, they’re doing better now than the big ones because they have a point of view.

It’s almost like in the movie industry. There’s Hollywood and there’s the independents, right?….Hollywood collapsed to a certain degree with Netflix and all these things. All the talent are going into Netflix, to do things that are more [adventurous]….

WWD

It’s impossible to disagree with everything he said...
That’s why among all the Vogue, VP remains the most consistent.
While I totally get Anna’s strategy because it worked from a business point of view and it helps the Vogue brand globally, it has also killed the purpose of the fashion magazine that is Vogue.

And In France, we can really see that Vogue is totally different from ELLE. Vogue is still a fashion magazine! We don’t have any actress doing her promo on the magazine...No matter if that actress is Charlotte Gainsbourg or Catherine Deneuve.

But Baron has also a responsability because unfortunately I think that his work has been very very exclusive over the decade. His aesthetic somehow felt cold and detached from the current aspirations...

The success of the independent magazines and the lifestyle magazine like M Le Monde shows a clear interest for Fashion with a capital F...

Can anybody at American Vogue be courageous enough to put 1 model on a cover for 3 months in a row? This requires a lot of courage and it will send a big signal!

Celebrities, and particularly powerful celebrities uses magazines to serve their narrative and the only way for a magazine like Vogue to regain it power is to reposition itself as a fashion force.

It’s interesting that Vogue is talking about values....
Those values could have been from any big conglomerate. Inclusivity, Creativity are key words that every company like to use for their communication.
Fashion should be the main value....

 

[TommysBaby]

Yeah he's right, but he isn't saying something new. And in these times, I'm sure people would much rather stick to formulas that work rather than try these abstract ideas like panaceas.

With most critics, and this includes people on Twitter/Instagram voicing their strong opinions on how to fix the business, the criticism and "what went wrong" comes strong but the solutions are weak. We all know internet happened and then social media happened and now suddenly, fashion/photos and the consumption of the same (not clothes per se, but the lifestyle it sells you) is way too available, democratized, inexpensive...and satisfactory too. I like consuming fashion/lifestyle through Instagram because its a good experience - it's customized to your tastes. And it does not belittle me (at least not on the face of it).

People want a customized/personal experience now. And big corporations and magazines like Vogue and Elle are too huge to have an intimate connection with it's customers. If I can access an editorial on the internet and read all the articles, why will I buy the magazine? And the cover is important but it's not everything.

So it's not really about a celebrity on the cover or whether or not Anna panders to the Kardashians - that's not why print magazines are failing. Somehow Kardashians are the scapegoat of all modern ills - saying that they (or whatever they represent) are causing the problem is totally missing the point. Sure, Fabien, maybe YOU bought magazines because they were so "fashion" and so exclusive and so aspirational - and they are not anymore. But that's not why magazines are failing. Unless magazines find a way improve the experience of the customer/reader beyond selling a good photo or a nice article (which are available for free anyway), all magazines will eventually sink or become niche interests. (I doubt that smaller magazines with a unique point of view are able to sell at the scale of Vogue, even now. It's mythical to think that a big business can incorporate the ideas of why a small business works and enjoy the same kind of dividends. Small businesses work for reasons unique to their scale - a magazine planning to sell at Vogue's scale will not be successful with the same formula. Unless of course if anyone can confirm for me that these small magazines are selling more than Vogue, in which case I will happily change my mind.)

 

[aracic]

Fashion should be the main value....

Amen sister.

Fabien spoke nothing but truth in that interview. It's incredibly sad that fashion died because people became lazy and privileged by the rise of internet and social media. Sure, it's all available online anyway but have you ever bought an old issue of your favorite magazine, and despite knowing what every next page will feature because you've seen it online, you still feel that excitement because you now get to actually hold and own your own copy of it? I know like every page of any old Vogue Italia I buy but it's still a big and exciting experience for me to get my own copy and go through it in person. The feeling of going though an actual magazine versus a digital copy is incomparable. It's like books! It's the smell of it, the feeling of it, the whole look of it and the point of it. Every editorial looks better in person, on a beautiful glossy paper (which is probably one of the reason why I always disliked W in print, because of it's horrible paper).
I know it's all about business and sales now, but that's not how it should be. Not with art! And fashion is art. Real fashion photography is an art form, clothes are an art form. And they should be treated like that. You don't make art for sales or to please the lazy, arrogant society who's just gonna scroll through your feed without even paying attention. You do it to express yourself, you do it to show the world that there are things beyond just plain, boring reality. You do it to bring dreams and inspiration to life. That's why you do it. And that's why fashion should do it. Cause the thing we have in present day, that's no fashion at all.

 

[Lola701]

Amen sister.

Fabien spoke nothing but truth in that interview. It's incredibly sad that fashion died because people became lazy and privileged by the rise of internet and social media. Sure, it's all available online anyway but have you ever bought an old issue of your favorite magazine, and despite knowing what every next page will feature because you've seen it online, you still feel that excitement because you now get to actually hold and own your own copy of it? I know like every page of any old Vogue Italia I buy but it's still a big and exciting experience for me to get my own copy and go through it in person. The feeling of going though an actual magazine versus a digital copy is incomparable. It's like books! It's the smell of it, the feeling of it, the whole look of it and the point of it. Every editorial looks better in person, on a beautiful glossy paper (which is probably one of the reason why I always disliked W in print, because of it's horrible paper).
I know it's all about business and sales now, but that's not how it should be. Not with art! And fashion is art. Real fashion photography is an art form, clothes are an art form. And they should be treated like that. You don't make art for sales or to please the lazy, arrogant society who's just gonna scroll through your feed without even paying attention. You do it to express yourself, you do it to show the world that there are things beyond just plain, boring reality. You do it to bring dreams and inspiration to life. That's why you do it. And that's why fashion should do it. Cause the thing we have in present day, that's no fashion at all.

While I totally agree with you on some parts, we can’t ignore that fashion is also a business. You can’t exclude one and cheer the other...
Magazines are part of the eco-system of fashion, the business of fashion...
Designers who considered themselves as purely artist never truly made it. Yes they had convictions but also had « mainstream success aspirations » and their lack of success resulted sometimes in a great frustration...
Vogue is like Louis Vuitton. I don’t expect Vuitton to function like Alaia. So we can’t expect for Vogue to be like Interview or Self Service...

But yes, I think that fashion should be the main value because that’s what Vogue is all about after all. Yes, fashion is part of life so it make sense for Vogue to tap into what’s going on in life to have a magazine that reflects our time...

What’s the added value of a magazine like Vogue: it name, it own talents and the talents that it attracts.

IG and social media has made editors lazy and changed the game but nobody on IG can create quality images with top styling.

I like to mention VP... Even if I hate Emmanuelle’s Jeans stories...Even if everybody can wear jeans and t-shirts, look cool and take good pictures, nobody can do it like Emmanuelle, with the perfect girl, shot by I&V with Stephen Galloway helping.

I would have loved for the issue to be « Fashion for all » as value...Because ultimately, that’s what Vogue has always offered. No matter if you are black, white, big or slim, a man or a woman, Vogue is supposed to offer a kind of accessible beauty that is totally unreachable...

It’s an ongoing debate and while What Fabien is saying is true, it’s also a basic shared point of view among everybody.
I wouldn’t be surprised to know that Anna also knows about that point of view....

But there’s a difference between how you run a business and how you appreciate an Art. Anna’s through her career as an EIC has supported a lot of designers that had struggled a lot to be commercial forces or who at least, didn’t have a clear « commercial appeal »( From Galliano to McQueen or even Ghesquiere to Theyskens)...And yet, she runs the most commercial magazine that she has transformed to whole other commercial MACHINE.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

They will do the same over and over, no matter what Fabien or us says about it. They have the power, so they can do whatever they want with it's magazines. Someday people will get tired of the bad quality, and I'm not talking about the cover subjects. You can't forgive a bad cover because you like that person, but then you dislike everything else, even if those covers aren't that bad. I'm judging the picture, and the contents (editorials). Reminds me of when Kim made thos gorgeous Vogue Japan and Arabia covers. I'm not into her, but those pictures were stunning. If you put any famous person in front of your magazine, do it right. No matter how many times you need to shoot that person to make a good cover. I remember an editor letter from Anna (september 1999) saying they've shoot Gwyneth in four ocations for the cover, but only two were good (I think Anna rejects the other two times). If the picture is bad, make another one, is that hard??? And Leibovitz, I find her style of photography better for Vanity Fair, but not for Vogue. Another photographer would have been better for most of the zillions covers of American Vogue over the last 20 years. Wish Penn, Avedon and Ritts were alive today.

 

[TommysBaby]

I agree with how a magazine feels - but what, maybe, we don't realize is that there is a whole generation of people out there who haven't consumed magazines like people born a couple decades before them. They just don't get the appeal of owning physical, tangible things. While many wouldn't think of reading a book from a screen, the same sentiments are not shared by many (who actually prefer it).

I don't mean to imply that the quality of pictures isn't integral. It is - it's all of it! Maybe, part of the problem is how it can all be consumed and discarded. How we look at a picture and then scroll past it, if we really like it we save/screenshot; maybe turn it into the wallpaper of our phone for a while. But very rarely will I feel the need to own it in print.

(But again, if that implies that only the existence of truly fine quality images in print makes sense, even that would lead to the extinction of most magazines - or diminish how often they publish an issue. Having better quality of anything is always preferred, but that cannot be the only answer.)

The value of preserving, collecting, and the physical experience will never be diminished. The point is that maybe this generation doesn't want to/can't experience it the same way the previous one did (even if the latter wants it to). I mean, magazines were the internet before the internet.

PS: I'm confused as to what "Vogue Values" is supposed to achieve from a marketing perspective. (???)

 

[tigerrouge]

A lot of youth culture seems to involve referencing the past, and reinterpreting it for their own needs.

People might be consuming magazine imagery differently these days, but there's still a reliance on images from the 70s, 80s, 90s etc having existed in the first place in order for them to be endlessly reposted on social media as inspiration.

Who is producing iconic original imagery right now that will stand the test of time for the generation beyond the generation of today? Who is investing in the creation of content that goes beyond a cheap click online? What editor remembers the alchemy of combining art and commerce to produce fashion imagery that sells something to us right now but also sticks around in the mind and imagination for some time afterwards?

 

[Benn98]

People want a customized/personal experience now. And big corporations and magazines like Vogue and Elle are too huge to have an intimate connection with it's customers.

That's precisely why magazines are failing. Vogue doesn't function on an algorithm that can customise its content to suit millions of fans. But they're trying to, and that is what Fabien is talking about. Magazines used to have a defined point of view which they stuck to, and you either endorsed or aspire to those ideals and bought the magazine, or you didn't. It was as clear cut as that. British Harper's Bazaar is a perfect example. They don't run after everyone and their mum to buy their issues. And yes, that's definitely the future for magazines if they want to survive. A niche experience. So why not just face the facts and start by fine-tuning your content and your point of view to a dedicated audience before you're forced to go 'digital only'. The excuse that it's strictly business? That didn't save the likes of British Marie Claire, who quite possibly had the most innovative marketing ways in the UK glossy scene, from going down the drain.

American Vogue, at it's core, used to be elitist. Only the cream of the crop made the cut, from brands to cast and crew. And they've adapted rather well to the winds of change such as diversity and politics. But to water that down with a cover of a woman whose claim to fame is a sex tape, or a rapper who very recently partnered with a bottom-feeding brand with an appalling sustainability record, considered to be the athlete's foot of the fashion industry....all under the guise of 'sparking conversation' when in actual fact it's really just for a bunch of likes and shares which will never translate into sales?

There are so many codewords in that Vogue Values edit that at least one will resonate with social media culture, and that's all that they're bargaining for. As well as giving the rapper a cover, dressed in scarlet. Oh, the comedy!

 

[reesewu]

That's precisely why magazines are failing. Vogue doesn't function on an algorithm that can customise its content to suit millions of fans. But they're trying to, and that is what Fabien is talking about. Magazines used to have a defined point of view which they stuck to, and you either endorsed or aspire to those ideals and bought the magazine, or you didn't. It was as clear cut as that. British Harper's Bazaar is a perfect example. They don't run after everyone and their mum to buy their issues. And yes, that's definitely the future for magazines if they want to survive. A niche experience. So why not just face the facts and start by fine-tuning your content and your point of view to a dedicated audience before you're forced to go 'digital only'. The excuse that it's strictly business? That didn't save the likes of British Marie Claire, who quite possibly had the most innovative marketing ways in the UK glossy scene, from going down the drain.

American Vogue, at it's core, used to be elitist. Only the cream of the crop made the cut, from brands to cast and crew. And they've adapted rather well to the winds of change such as diversity and politics. But to water that down with a cover of a woman whose claim to fame is a sex tape, or a rapper who very recently partnered with a bottom-feeding brand with an appalling sustainability record, considered to be the athlete's foot of the fashion industry....all under the guise of 'sparking conversation' when in actual fact it's really just for a bunch of likes and shares which will never translate into sales?

There are so many codewords in that Vogue Values edit that at least one will resonate with social media culture, and that's all that they're bargaining for. As well as giving the rapper a cover, dressed in scarlet. Oh, the comedy!

But a “niche experience” won’t get you money to fund expensive editorials. Not just in terms of set, but the experienced photographers, stylists, etc.

Magazines, like any media platforms, are thriving because they rely more on advertisers than on the people who buy them, and advertisers will always look for a media platform that has a high penetration.

It’s a “chicken and egg” situation, definitely. But the reason why sensationalists like Cardi are being featured on a cover is the mere fact that they bring engagement, which has become a more valuable metric than readership or circulation. Yes, engagements don’t have a linear translation into sales, but that doesn’t matter anymore. Advertisers will look for digital metrics (not just engagement or engagement rate, but also website session and bounce rate per-page) as their KPI (key performance indicator), and to them, they are more than enough.

We have to accept the phenomenon in which online features are not an appetizer to magazines, they are part of the main course as well.

 

[Benn98]

But a “niche experience” won’t get you money to fund expensive editorials. Not just in terms of set, but the experienced photographers, stylists, etc.

Magazines, like any media platforms, are thriving because they rely more on advertisers than on the people who buy them, and advertisers will always look for a media platform that has a high penetration.

It’s a “chicken and egg” situation, definitely. But the reason why sensationalists like Cardi are being featured on a cover is the mere fact that they bring engagement, which has become a more valuable metric than readership or circulation. Yes, engagements don’t have a linear translation into sales, but that doesn’t matter anymore. Advertisers will look for digital metrics (not just engagement or engagement rate, but also website session and bounce rate per-page) as their KPI (key performance indicator), and to them, they are more than enough.

We have to accept the phenomenon in which online features are not an appetizer to magazines, they are part of the main course as well.

Of course, it does. Because contrary what you've just said, in recent years we've actually seen a shift with advertisers seeking out magazines and platforms with a dedicated and engaged demographic, although small. Don't be mistaken, engagement is still key for sustainable advertising. What you're referring to is the type of advertiser who needs a hit or exposure regardless of where it's coming from or whether it will match their audience. That idea is archaic, and it's precisely why American Vogue's ad lineup will be the highest in March or September, filled with everything from Colgate to Vuitton to Peter Roth Thomas to obscure Brazilian brands which the magazine doesn't even shoot to malls (ads for malls!), and the lowest in January and June because guess what, all those advertisers don't bother to return during months where there won't be a lot of noise in the pages of Vogue.

To use UK Harper's Bazaar as an example again, they run on a very defined aesthetic which is great for their existing advertisers because they can bet on the same reader returning month after month, consuming every inch of the magazine. Said aesthetic does mean that Harper's will miss out on a very specific set of advertisers. They align themselves with those who share their aesthetic or lifestyle. It's the reason why you will not see the likes of Victoria's Secret, Calvin Klein underwear or hypebeast brands in the magazine, brands who do advertise in Vogue. Harper's didn't even shoot Saint Laurent until very recently (you won't find the ads in their magazine either), and even then, the most conservative looks are selected for their content. And yet despite all that, the magazine's page count still exceeds that of Vogue during certain months, and still manage to see growth year after year.

So no, niche magazines (websites, influencers!) are still able to court advertising and as shown with Harper's, it can be very successful with the right approach.

 

[dmcoram]

In multiple stores today in Indianapolis I only saw Stella's cover. I'm worried about which I'll receive in the mail.

 

[axiomatic]

My apologies, not 150-page pamphlet, 110 pages!

The print edition has even fewer pages,106. It just feels so insignificant; shrink by a few more pages and it could be saddle stitched.

 

[axiomatic]

In multiple stores today in Indianapolis I only saw Stella's cover. I'm worried about which I'll receive in the mail.

I got the Stella cover in the mail

 

[Xone]

I never understood why magazines like Vogue or Elle shows the complete article and pictures, what are they thinking? that the images are so amazing and they need to "have them" in physic? I don't think people respond like that in these days, the minute they saw everything they move to the next thing... so they need to learn to keep things in private in a world of showing everything...Because they are not going to buy if you put everything on the table...But like someone said sometimes it's not even to sell magazines but to have certain metrics to attract advertisers to make content....

Also what Lola 701 and Benn98 said is very valid, among with others...but big corporations are naive or full of themselves to see a clear landscape about this. And i agree in the past you knew what Vogue give you,what Elle give you or HB,now they are in competition to be basically the same. It's a little childish game and not really effective in the long time because they want to please everyone....They totally forgot what they stands for in order to play the game...

 

[Xone]

oh and funny thing...until now Cardi B didn't share her cover image, just one picture from the inside editorial....

 

[AlbertNoir]

Guys I’m with you..I’m a huge Fashion fan, a devoted models evolution follower and not really into the celebrity thing. I got your point.
But what’s a concrete solution for a new form of creativity of this business in the future?

I mean Anna started this global process with her first cover styled by Carlyne thirty years ago. They gave her that position of EIC specifically to reinvent Vogue as a huge “pop machine” as Elle was at the time.
Now thirty years later the the process is completed, done, full, but also incontroverible imo.
Do you think possible a new course of US Vogue open again to “Only Models” in the cover and artistically directed and fashioned as Vogue Paris?
I can’t see a new course that involves Fashion as we use to love for this mag.

 

[MulletProof]

But what’s a concrete solution for a new form of creativity of this business in the future?

It needs to be fixed from the root, which is design. Anna's presence and its monopolistic tendency is highly problematic and has definitely set the tune for a lot of what has gone wrong (from being out of line enough to 'advise' designers to her lobbyist practices) but ultimately, it was the corporate side what crumbled fashion's foundation and what fed all of its different branches (magazines being one of them), which is design. You can have a lot of wonderful ideas for magazines and imagery but if all you have are essentially ironic rags, knock-offs, your best 'tribute' to the taste of a 70 year-old man who died 40 years ago, you're as good as the fashion zine project of a small fashion design school of any suburb. You're not speaking to anybody. Who's modeling these rags matters but it's such a fifth, sixth consequence of a change of mindset and priorities from those responsible for growing fashion. Fashion week right now is empty, it's sailed away so far from the input of similar events produced by its 'peers' (industrial, graphic design, architecture, etc) in the fact that there's hardly anybody receiving support and recognition for designing under his/her own name.. just the idea of being on your own is now understood and accepted as the preamble for your big entrance into a fashion house with codes established at least some 50-70 years ago for the needs and ideas of the lucky generation at that time. That is no longer academic foundation and knowing your history and what you stand on so you can then fly away, learn to know yourself and nurture your creative needs AS you create and provide something to your field, it's the be all end all, which is so tragically bizarre and yet seen as the most natural thing, even on tFS, where it's a recurrent hot topic (who will design where).

Once that is 'fixed', and because it's so engrained it may take just a whole different generation.. and because a young person that's just starting out doesn't just fire a CEO, it can only be fixed by observing the models of again, different fields, creating additional outlets from scratch and with their own vocabulary/dogmas so that the previous one eventually becomes obsolete. Imagery will then follow.. maybe magazines will never quite recover as fashion itself can but unlike reading the news and how technology has made that so easy you don't need to hold a newspaper anymore, fashion depends on visuals and this saturation of a world that only exists on a screen (social media and its microscopic space for non-conformist/individualistic behavior) may actually help the survival of fashion magazines.. if done well, and if they become less expensive, less 'collectible' and 'limited edition'.. greener I guess, smaller, simpler but higher in print quality and more demanding of their readers (how sophisticated their knowledge is, capacity to scrutinize and say no thanks, etc), then things will look up.

 

[MON]

Week after, and I still can’t believe a Cardi B cover exists