December 4, 2018

"There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!"

"There are no clues that this is a milestone moment in the struggle for survival of old media, and how women relate to the sisters-in-arms-advice-over-wine voice of the magazine, one that is now moving from their mailboxes to their inboxes. It is, consequently, both an anthropologist’s treasure, a perfect example of what exactly the problem is with legacy fashion magazines in the early 21st century — stories that can’t get published until well past their relevancy date (hasn’t everyone done that Meghan Markle piece?), fashion we’ve all seen before (hello, Instagram!) — and one that is entirely disposable, despite some smart articles. But thus does print go out: not with a bang, but a fizzle."

Writes Vanessa Friedman in "Saying Goodbye to Glamour/The glossy magazine is pivoting to digital. It should have gone out of print with a bigger bang" (NYT).

Here's the sad final print cover of Glamour:

I was a fan of Glamour magazine in the 1960s, when I was a teenager. I even subscribed. The fashion was Mod. Loved it. But Glamour didn't adapt to the hippie movement. It even proclaimed the hippie movement had died, and it was pretty obvious that from the magazine's point of view, it had to die, because hippies didn't buy makeup, didn't get their hair done, and wore jeans and various thrift-shop rags. It was stylish and fun not to spend any money. Looking back, with a perspective of half a century, I'm sad that women of today wear more makeup than ever, torture their hair into ludicrous "beachy waves," and spend money on glitzy, uncomfortable clothes. I said go to hell to Glamour in about 1968, and I still say go to hell.

(I also read Glamour every month for 2 years in the early 70s, when I worked in a market research firm that did a report on magazines, and we had a lot of fun mocking the drivel in that and many other magazines.)

70 comments:

Dave Begley said...

"I'm sad that women of today wear more makeup than ever, torture their hair into ludicrous "beachy waves," and spend money on glitzy, uncomfortable clothes."

These women aren't living in Omaha; maybe Madison. Or maybe I run in the wrong Deplorable circles.

MayBee said...

I will forever remember the "Glamour Don't" where women's faces were blocked out in photos of them walking down the street wearing the wrong thing, or having the wrong hairstyle.

MayBee said...

Althouse- do you see coloring your hair as less torturous than curling it into waves?

susan.h said...

Ah yes, reminds me of the Glamour magazine George Costanza found in his mothers home. Certain embarrasing events transpired which lead to the contest between George, Jerry, Kramer and Elaine. One of the better episodes.

holdfast said...

Amber Heard was gorgeous, but the Hollywood demanded that she get too skinny and she lost her boobs.

Actresses shouldn’t have to be interchangeable with runway models.

Ficta said...

In the 70s, the photos in Glamour were the most revealing of any minor-accessible magazine apart from that one February issue of Sports Illustrated. Seinfeld even had an episode about that aspect of Glamour.

tcrosse said...

...we had a lot of fun mocking the drivel in that and many other magazines.

Althouse is still having fun mocking the drivel in the NYT, WaPo, and other publications.

Ann Althouse said...

"These women aren't living in Omaha; maybe Madison."

No, not in Madison. It's very casual here, for old and young.

I'm just looking at fashion photos, photos of celebrities, and women on television. There's a ridiculous mismatch between the women in photos and video and what any real-life woman would want to do. It's getting worse and worse. I looked at a clip from "The View" yesterday, and I was astonished that they'd figured out how to put even more makeup on these supposedly relatable daytime-TV women. How are viewers supposed to feel? Do they attempt to stick on multiple rows of false eyelashes and outline their eyesockets in black shadow?

rhhardin said...

They'll be back if there's a Carrington event.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Women's magazines are garbage filled with leftwing talking points. real women should reject that crap.

Ann Althouse said...

"Amber Heard was gorgeous..."

What's going on with her cheekbone? It's like they implanted something made of steel.

Ann Althouse said...

Also, the font on that cover is making me ill.

Otto said...

"I said go to hell to Glamour in about 1968, and I still say go to hell." - cultural marxism

Mr Wibble said...

Goodbye paper, it's been nice
Now were online, just like Vice
Hope you see our new review
Of some make up, on YouTube.

Ann Althouse said...

That "beachy waves" hairstyle (that's been going on for years, boringly) is what used to be called "bedroom hair." In the 60s, it looked like something that had lived and died in the 50s and that we'd been liberated from forever. It looks so retrograde to me. The only place I like it is on the Julie London album covers I inherited from my father.

Henry said...

But thus does print go out: not with a bang, but a fizzle.

This is the way the world ends // Not with a bang but a whimper is just too depressing to use straight.

I suggest a different paraphrase:

Old glossies never die. The simply fade away.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

“ I looked at a clip from "The View" yesterday, and I was astonished that they'd figured out how to put even more makeup on these supposedly relatable daytime-TV women. How are viewers supposed to feel? Do they attempt to stick on multiple rows of false eyelashes and outline their eyesockets in black shadow”

White chicks aping WOCs. That’s why your hippie-natural got plowed aside. Ain’t nobody got time for that. On the positive side, aggressive feminine grooming is helping propel the Latina future managerial class to where they’re headed. I think this is a good thing for anyone who believes in professionalism and the work ethic.

Henry said...

Whimper is a better word than fizzle and should have been used.

Sebastian said...

"sad final print cover"

Pretty hot babe on pretty hot car: not sad.

"the font on that cover"

There was writing?

"It's getting worse and worse"

Yeah, in the days of Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn the mismatch was so much smaller.

Rick Turley said...

Had to wait a couple of minutes* at the doctor's office the other day. Picked up a magazine to riffle through. Felt strange to handle the glossy paper. Haven't leafed through a newspaper in years.

Almost out of the all of the years of the WSJ I have saved for lighting charcoal for the grill. What to do when it runs out? I don'think older posts of Althouse is flammable.

*Yea for the concierge doctor concept!

MayBee said...

That "beachy waves" hairstyle (that's been going on for years, boringly) is what used to be called "bedroom hair." In the 60s, it looked like something that had lived and died in the 50s and that we'd been liberated from forever. It looks so retrograde to me. The only place I like it is on the Julie London album covers I inherited from my father.

Back in my day, we called it "bedroom hair", and we liked it

Seriously though, hair was at its most dreadful in the 80s and 90s and I am so glad there are multiple cute hairstyles now. My own hair is messy and wavy, and I have to torture it if I want it to go straight. Which I do sometimes, but I can't easily wear my hair in a straight bob like yours (which has been in style for a while now, too!) So I'm fine if the fashion boringly doesn't change.

narciso said...

Ah yes amber heard, but then she has to go with the obligatory agit prop. Does she really think people are interested in her political opinions

BarrySanders20 said...

They are transitioning from the medium assigned by the patriarchy.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Sit in any doc's office or waiting room filled with women's magazines. They are all filled with leftwing this and pro-democratic that, and anti anything to do with anything not leftwing. More free campaigns for the corruptocrats. Who is in charge of these magazines? Leftist gay mafia or angry feminist marxists?

Leland said...

Shouldn't their demise be trumpeted not for their past but that they go to less wasteful production?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

and then there's the pile of political magazines like TIME. They offer only pro-democrat spin/ cult of Trump fear and loathing as well. Then you can go home and turn on Maddow.

narciso said...

The answer is yes, both of those groups, amber should realize when you're fronting a major film, in her own mind don't do anything to distract from it.

Darkisland said...

As a writer I really, really, miss paper magazines. They used to pay in the neighborhood of 75c to $1.00 per word.

Now I am lucky to get 25-50c.

OTOH, as a reader I don't miss paper at all. Digital is to much easier to read, it is always with me, and it is just easier to handle a tablet than a paper magazine.

John Henry

Seeing Red said...

Will Glamour survive the digital age? Or will it be out of sight, out of mind?

MayBee said...

The thing I hate about women's magazines as I remember them:

- they made you feel fat if you aren't incredibly skinny. Even when they started adding plus sized models, they were voluptuous plus size. The girl who is just moderately sized had no representation.

- they made you hate men, but think you should be after sex all the time.

- they made you believe men can't love

- they were very very very New York centric.

Darrell said...

Ann said--What's going on with her cheekbone? It's like they implanted something made of steel.

That's where Johnny Depp beat the crap out of her.

Jupiter said...

Ann Althouse said...

"How are viewers supposed to feel?"

With their feelers?

tcrosse said...

Meanwhile, the Internet has not been kind to Mens' skin magazines, even those one reads for the articles.

William Chadwick said...

George Costanza hardest hit.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

New magazine idea: Deplorable Monthly. It's a Festivus for the rest of us.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

I'm not into women's hairstyles. But the "Beehive" of the early 60s has to be the worst.

Chris of Rights said...

My mocking of women's magazines has always been thus.

Women's magazines nearly always have a picture of a beautiful woman on the cover.
On the other hand, men's magazines nearly always have a picture of ... a beautiful woman on the cover.

Professional lady said...

The only time I look at Glamour and other similar women's magazines is at the hair salon when I'm waiting for my stylist to get to me. There's lots of articles which normalize casual sex with lots of "partners." Occasionally there's a warning about STDs. I find it pretty sad and shallow.

Jim said...

Standing in line at the market, I noticed Cosmo is still going. Same cover, same articles. Hasn't changed a bit in decades.

Ann Althouse said...

"White chicks aping WOCs. That’s why your hippie-natural got plowed aside."

There was a natural look for black people that happened at the same time. It was great! The slogan was "Black is beautiful."

William Chadwick said...

Chris of Rights: I remember an interview with Helen Gurley Brown when she ran Cosmopolitan. She was up front about the Babe Factor in Cosmo's covers, in particular cover-girl Cleavage. HGB defended this policy by asking rhetorically: "Who doesn't love Cleavage?" I guess it's the same reason fitness magazines for straight men have cover photos of bare-chested buff hunks. "I'd like to look like that!"

I knew a very hetero woman (I'd heard her called a nymphomaniac, and she wouldn't deny it) who told me she had no interest in watching male strippers, but got very turned on by watching female strippers, especially in locations where they were allowed to get completely naked. I asked her, "Isn't that strange?" She laughed and said, "Haven't you heard of 'projection'?" She didn't have the body for stripping so she could project herself getting naked up on the runway and turning on all the guys. I guess that's the appeal to many straight women of these "babe-a-licious" women's magazine covers.

MayBee said...

Yeah women-focused writers went from "black is beautiful" to "there are too many white people watching the Rockettes" They've done a great job developing thinkers.

Interestingly, the social media influencers who sell makeup - and now even have their own brands- deliver makeup without the thought-creating content.
You can find out how well the newest concealer lasts without having to hear how you should want to have an affair at work.
You can choose really pretty women putting on makeup, or really plain women, or even men. Magazines, trying to push a more progressive line in editorial, are getting cast aside by real diversity with no barriers to entry.

Freeman Hunt said...

My dad once went out with a woman whose picture was in Glamour, and he didn't like her, so of course the magazine was doomed.

tcrosse said...

The 80's had to be the high water mark for that streak of makeup on the cheek to suggest high cheekbones.

tim in vermont said...

Glamour should publish in 4K on an Apple TV app. It's even better than a glossy magazine visually.

Yancey Ward said...

Costanza had long moved on to Pornhub.

tim in vermont said...

Is that Benny Hill or Jimmy Johnson?

Yancey Ward said...

How many people actually read the online version, I wonder?

Ann Althouse said...

What I'd say about hairstyles generally is that I'd like to see predominance given to the haircut, but that's rarely tied to the magazine's ads. Electric implements and gooey products are much more likely to be an income source. But I would like to see great cutting, with interesting new things happening, the way it did in the 60s, with Kenneth and Vidal Sassoon. I'd like to see haircuts that were adapted to the particular texture of hair so that you can then just wash and dry your hair and have a workable hairdo without fussing with it every day. That's why I used the word "tortured." I'm not saying go style-less and be a hippie letting it flow, though that is one way to avoid fuss. I'd like to see great haircuts that take advantage of real hair texture, so that people with curly hair aren't trying to get straight and people with straight hair aren't trying to get to some insane idea of "beachiness." If your hair really does naturally get into that wave form, then I'd like you to have a haircut that makes that happen in the best way so that you're not stuck using a brush and dryer or a hot iron to insert bends and curves where you think they should be.

And I'm not against hair color. That too is something that you get at the hair salon and then don't fuss with on a daily basis.

Kevin said...

I only came here to see how many comments it would take to get to a Seinfeld comment. Answer: [/owlvoice on] 1...2...3...4. 4. [/owlvoice off]

madAsHell said...

ludicrous "beachy waves,"

I had to look it up!! I have also heard it called the freshly-fucked-look.

Freeman Hunt said...

You can use hair to keep it confusing. For example, have expensive hair color but dress like Columbo. Be puzzling.

Christy said...

Here's the thing. I always spend much more time with a print magazine full of pictures than I do with that same magazine on my tablet. This doesn't hold if I look at the magazine for the articles. Threads, a sewing mag, I want to hold in my hand and study the pictures. Fashion and fitness magazines likewise. Southern Living, for me, is right at the tipping point. I'm happy either way as I don't need to study the luscious picture of a new recipe. Interesting to note, however, my long time favorite online recipe site, Allrecipes.com, launched a glossy paper magazine a couple of years ago that I haven't bothered to get but I see it is still in publication.

Mark said...

Will Glamour survive the digital age? Or will it be out of sight, out of mind?

Very few written articles or unprinted books will survive the ephemeral age. They might exist on some decaying media (for a time), but no one will know that they are there.

gerry said...

It was stylish and fun not to spend any money.

Revolutionary conformity.

rehajm said...

For example, have expensive hair color but dress like Columbo

One upvote for the raincoat with FMPs...

William said...

Did the women who read Cosmo have more and better orgasms than the women who read other magazines? Which woman's mag was the déclassé one that women didn't like to be caught with? My mother read Good Housekeeping. As I remember, there were no lingerie ads and the articles had a kind of Consumer Reports vibe, but my memory might be off. Some woman's mags had hot photos, but not Good Housekeeping and McCall's which were all I ever saw laying about the house. My sister read True Romances or some such thing. I think it had some reasonably hot illustrations, but she kept them out of sight.

tcrosse said...

Back in the 1970's either Glamour or Cosmo ran an article on How to Talk Hip. It was hilarious, especially compared and contrasted to the comedy album How to Speak Hip (1959) which was around at the time.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

poo. Glamour did a 4 page spread on us years ago.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

AA: I looked at a clip from "The View" yesterday, and I was astonished that they'd figured out how to put even more makeup on these supposedly relatable daytime-TV women.

Shows like "The View" are aimed at the same market that used to be targeted by women's magazines and "women's pages". You know, the "drivel" that you "had a lot of fun mocking" back in the day.

The same can be said for the articles posted before and after this post. Bitchy, trivial, hectoring fare put out by women who no doubt consider themselves to be doing something "serious" and "important", nothing like all that silly fashion advice and propaganda for social conformity churned out by their "women's pages" predecessors. But what they put out is at least as shallow, but with a great deal more pretension and vulgarity.

I used to enjoy high-end glossies, beautifully produced and making no pretense of being anything but what they were - publications where pretty things were advertised to women who enjoyed seeing and buying pretty things, by merchants who wanted to sell their pretty wares to them, or, rather, their down-market substitutions. (They don't exist anymore, having long since gone mondo-trasho, and stuffed with idiot SJW politics.) There was nothing inherently contemptible in that, regardless of feminist sneering. These latter-day "women's pages", filled with the screeching and scolding of jumped-up gossip-columnists educated beyond their intelligence, *are* contemptible.

Freeman Hunt said...

One upvote for the raincoat with FMPs...

Columbo wore heels?

PM said...

Without those magazines, there'd be no bell cow for Buzzfeed.
Top 10 Lies Men Tell in Bed
6 Quick Ways to Bigger Breasts
etc

rehajm said...

Columbo wore heels?

No silly goose, he wore the raincoat. The heels are an embellishment.

rehajm said...

Falk in Athol

johnhenry100 said...

Who're you calling a falking athol, reham?

John Henry

Unknown said...

Brian Wilson loved How To Talk Hip and always wanted to make a comedy album. If you've heard his comedy bits on leaked Beach Boys session tapes, you know that would..not have been a good idea.

Fritz said...

Even the hippies thought that the hippies were dead.

Death Of Hippie

Organized by the Diggers, residents of Haight-Ashbury marched through the streets in early October, 1967, carrying a coffin to symbolize the “Death of Hippie.” They carried it to Buena Vista Park, the oldest park in San Francisco. The park sits on a hill whose low end is bordered by Haight Street. The Diggers (a name taken from history) were a radical community action group of activists and street theater performers who operated in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco. The protest was against the commercialization of the hippie movement, or the notion that it was a “movement” at all. The Diggers maintained “hippie” was a phenomenon created by the media. The residents wanted the media out of Haight-Ashbury.

n.n said...

Feminine females, especially "white girls next door", have to compete with transgender/homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and neo-females for political, economic, and social attention.

mikee said...

I recall Glamour having more exposed skin than most other fashion magazines of the 1980s.
Even a nip slip once in a while.
Other than that, I don't recall much about Glamour at all, at all.
One of my coworkers kept the current issue on her desk at all times.
It was useful as a coaster for coffee mugs, and for swatting the odd cockroach.