Someone Must Explain the "Etc."

As promised, we took a second look at Shop Etc.  We hate to say it, but we were right the first time around.  And we still don’t understand the title.

Here’s what we liked (a short list):

• Practical articles on buying wine, carryon luggage, and cars (!).  We miss the days when Lucky had a regular travel feature and covered shopping for quirky collectors’ items like vinyl records, so Shop’s articles are a step in the right direction.

• A fashion feature showing entire outfits purchased from one store, shoes and accessories included.  Not that we or anyone we know shops this way, but it’s fun to think about dressing head-to-toe  in Banana Republic or Prada.

• Spotlighting web sites with unique merchandise.  We love shopping online, so adding new sites to our regular haunts is a good thing.

What we didn’t like (a longer list):

• The fussy design:  the cursive accent font that’s everywhere, the gate folds, the pages crammed full of goods splayed in all directions, hearts and arrows and fuschia tags marked “brilliant buy” all over.  Ugh.  Just ugh.

• The blatant advertorial.  The fold-out feature “Denim 24/7” has a Levi Strauss ad on the back.  And a Levi Strauss list of “Denim Fun Facts” (wow, that serge de nimes is a riot!) immediately facing. 

• The aforementioned “24/7” feature.  Does every magazine have to do a spread with the model in seven outfits, one for each day of the week?  And do they have to be dressed completely unrealistically for whatever that day’s stated task is?  (Shop’s version of this: “Saturday.  Modern wedding.”  The bride wears white jeans.  And the bride moves quickly, considering Wednesday’s outfit was “First date.”)  Seriously, is there a federal law requiring this kind of inanity, and if not, can we make one banning it? 

• The horoscope, “Astroshop.”  This month, “cosmic fingertips match you with your best new manicure color.”  Need we say more?

• “Lip Service,” a beauty feature with close-ups of new lip colors.  We’re supposed to cut the small photos from the magazine and hold them to our faces to determine which look best on us.  Has anyone ever done this, let alone glued the pictures to a popsicle stick like the model on page 142?  Have the editors of Shop never been to Sephora, where you can actually try on lipsticks--the real thing, not paper facsimiles?  Again, this is not exclusive to Shop, but now is as good a time as any to stop this nonsense.

• Ridiculous answers to reader questions.  To be fair, many magazines do this, but it annoys us every time.  To wit:   I’m a grad student and I’d like to know the main pieces I’ll need this fall without investing in a whole new wardrobe.  Fashion Director Kate Dimmock then names three pieces that, combined, cost $771.  We don’t know any  grad students who have that kind of money to spend on clothes, and to us, $771 for three pieces is bank-breaking.  Why not take the opportunity to spotlight more affordable fashion?  Why not actually pay attention to what the question asks?  Or, you know, edit the question to remove the cost stipulation? 

What left us cold:

• Noticing after the fact that the discounted $1.99 cover price was offered at Barnes and Noble and not at the independent newsstand where we purchased our copy.