Lucky's "Real" Women Bring the Lie to Life

[Sorry about our unexpected absence last week.  Our week on deadline at work quickly dissolved into an eleven-hour-a-day nightmare, and, well, we chose sleep.  We hope to be back on our regular schedule this week.]

This isn’t surprising, exactly, but it’s always heart-warming to see our worst suspicions confirmed!   We’ve long suspected the “real women” segments of Lucky magazine of being completely false.   Are we really to believe that these women just happen to cite cutting-edge fashions as their favorites?   Is it mere happenstance that they can describe luxury beauty products better than the beauty editor herself?   Can it even be possible that, no matter how artsy or itinerant their profession, these women can handily afford high-end apparel and accessories?

The answer to all three questions:  No.

Two different women featured in January’s issue have said that their recommendations were, in fact, fabricated by the magazine’s staffers.  First, Courtney Childs Lewis of “My Foolproof Outfit” wrote that neither her photo shoot ensemble nor her enthusiastic descriptions of the pieces were her own. Then, “Lucky Girl” Victoria Asher claimed to have been misquoted on “almost everything.”

Obviously, we don’t expect gospel from these magazines, and we know that selling expensive products and ad space is far more important that portraying any kind of accurate look at, well, anything.  But pages like this are troublesome because they perpetuate the notion that average women look a certain way (skinny, long hair), dress a certain way (designer, trendy), and have immense spending power.  (In “My Foolproof Outfit,” the bracelets alone cost $5,423.  Get real, Lucky.)

Magazines like Lucky could use average women as a vital link between the fashion world and the one the rest of us inhabit—they could be  reality check, or a conduit for trends, or our most trusted resources.  (Wouldn’t you rather hear about an eye cream from a woman who uses it than from some editor who’s probably shilling for an advertiser?)  Instead, they are used to perpetuate the lie and peddle overpriced crap.  It’s not news, it’s not groundbreaking, but knowing that the magazine is more interested in selling than in showing us actual style makes us a lucky woman indeed.

Comments

[Sarah]

As someone not in the magazine biz - how do these kinds of features work? Do they consider it a quid pro quo, where someone trades a picture and a little press for an agreement to pretend that they carry a Celine bag on a fundraiser's salary? Are these people just friends of the staff?

It's one of the most outright ways a magazine fosters insecurity. "Real" women wear two hundred dollar jeans - why don't you? A three hundred dollar skirt is a "steal"!

[christin]

Oh thank God. I read these things sometimes and I think - how is this woman 25 years old, affording all these clothes, speaking like one of the privileged few - makes me feel like I did something wrong in life to NOT be there. How foolish. This is good and yet sad to know. I adore this website.

[The Brunette]

Misrepresentation of people's tastes doesn't surprise me.In 2000, InStyle profiled Shirley Manson, and on the page were photos of the clothes she supposedly liked. Not too long after, she posted on the Garbage site that InStyle didn't consult with her on "Shirley's Fashion Picks!" - she'd never wear purple.

My understanding is that with "real people" featured in magazines, they are probably friends with a magazine staffer. And given that magazine staffers tend to come from money and are subsidized by their parents (how else can they afford their fabulous Manhattan lives on less than $50,000 a year?), I'm sure their friends who are not in the industry are the same way.

And so the magazine's definition of reality is based on the staffers' myopia. Maybe Ms. Childs Lewis doesn't have those $5,423 bracelets, but chances are, she can afford them with money she didn't earn from her Internet consulting job.

[Eli]

Magazines are all built on lies. Theyre really one big glossy advertisement.

[Jessica]

I would be pissed if I were featured in one of these features and SO widely misquoted, though -- that just seems like bad journalism to me, even if the glossies aren't truly considered "proper" journalism.

[Emily]

Womens' magazines are soon to totally die in the arse, IMHO. there's so many user-run style blogs out there now with real gals rocking their hotness, you no longer have to wade thru a bazillion ad pages/grit your teeth and hold tight to your self esteem just to get your fashion fix.