Lucky Now Loaded with Less Expensive Stuff You Still Don't Need

I have a double standard when it comes to the clothes in magazines: I’m way more offended by a $300 bracelet than I am by a $25,000 ball gown. See, ball gowns exist purely to remind me how plebeian I am. They have nothing to do with real life (or, at least, my life), and I will never have cause to buy one, so I want to ogle only the grandest, most ostentatious gowns in magazines. But when Bazaar recommends I “stock up” on a $325 Chanel bracelet as if that’s a sound way to build an investment portfolio, I’m bugged. Either their math is way off, or I’m going about it all wrong by paying rent before buying baubles.

That’s why Lucky bothers me so much. For a magazine that’s ostensibly about shopping, there's little in its pages that I—or any other trust fund-deprived mortal—could actually purchase. So my curiosity was piqued when Lucky editor-in-chief Kim France mentioned money-related matters in September’s “Editor’s Letter.”

We’ve been quite busy here at Lucky HQ lately, creating new pages…Deal Hunting, in which we present, for your delectation, clothing and accessories that fall into the budget no-shock zone.

“Delectation”? Well, that may be an overstatement. But if you need a magazine to point you to the mall, then these two pages will do the trick! Chains like American Eagle Outfitters, Gap, J. Crew, and H&M are all represented here. Their suggestion of a $49 Nautica rugby shirt is almost insultingly unimaginative, but it’s hard to quibble too much when the most expensive piece featured is a $145 trench coat.

Anyway, not all hope is lost for those of us who enjoy spending money on luxuries like, say, health insurance and groceries. “Style Spy” offers two work-appropriate bags under $100. “My Foolproof Outfit” deviates from its usual high-spending ways, featuring a Manhattan financial adviser whose priciest choice is a $305 Cynthia Steffe dress. And the “Lucky Girl” keeps it almost real, too, selecting a $188 cashmere cardigan, a $15 necklace, and a $166 embroidered canvas bag.

But is this apparent decline in prices merely confirmation bias or an actual shift in Lucky’s editorial?

That’s a question only a spreadsheet can solve! I compared three fashion stories from the August issue with this month’s to find the average price per item.

“My Foolproof Outfit”

August average: $670.11

September average: $181.44

“Lucky Girl”

August average: $220.83

September average: $152.43

August’s “The Lucky How to Wear Your Denim Guide” and September’s “The Lucky Fall Trend Special”

August average: $262.87

September average: $532.45

So not much has actually changed, except perhaps the magazine’s realization that not all of us are willing to trade a kidney for a shearling coat. But that acknowledgment is a step in the right direction, even if does raise a host of questions. Is fashion by its very nature exclusive? Can a wool blazer from the Gap be considered fashion? Am I the only person who doesn’t share Lucky’s penchant for ludicrously expensive scarves? (Check out the $725 animal-print Vuitton on page 326. Ouch.)

I don’t know, and I’m not sure Lucky does either. But I welcome an increased emphasis on accessible apparel in magazines. I won’t ever need a ball gown, but I’d still like to look like I might.

Comments

[Laryssa]

I've been thinking the same thing, and it was starting to make me wonder if other readers are actually okay with this. Like those people from the street models...can they afford this stuff? Thanks for voicing your concern! =)

[makyo]

"Can a wool blazer from the Gap be considered fashion?"

well i certainly hope so! otherwise i am really out of luck. the fact is, the vast majority of consumers have a limited budget for clothing and accessories, and may have limited exposure to more upscale stores as well. magazines like lucky *should* be dedicated to showing those exact folks how to pair inexpensive clothes from easily-accessible shops for the most style impact, not trying to convince women that they need $800 scarves or $1500 handbags.

[MissPinkKate]

This is why I read Seventeen magazine, I kid you not. That magazine is filled with the kind of stuff I actually find affordable.

[theladymel]

Haha! Awesome--I think I'll give Seventeen a look through. :-)

I spent a $100 the other day on clothes and I bought: two pair jeans, a dress, two shirts, a necklace and a pair of shoes. Yay thrift stores!

I just honestly can't imagine buying a bracelet for $325--and not just because I'm not making much money. Who knows--this may change when I'm out of college and (please god and all of his angels) have a good paying job--but I think it would just physically hurt to spend that much money on something that wasn't, you know, like a classic suit that would last for 10 years.

[Pam]

Just imagine how successful a magazine would be that showed how real women can dress with style - in an affordable manner.
Makyo- I guess I'll have to check out Seventeen (unless the clothes are for teens only -I'm no longer a teen :)

[melissa]

Uuuuugh, Lucky plagues me monthly. I subscribed to Jane like a month before they folded, and the sweethearts up and Conde thought I might really like Lucky in its place (I was not consulted on the matter). It's really an exasperating magazine, for the reasons you mentioned, and also because I can't help but notice that a lot of the outfits they put together to "advise" people on their self-styling habits are pretty, um, horrible.

[Athena]

I have not read Lucky in at least a year and the magazine is just as irrelevant now as it was then. It's nice to know that some things never change. I would pick up Seventeen for the clothes as well since they do feature cute things at times, but I loathe the idea of having some Disney Channel tween star looking back at me.

[Jessica]

Wow a $325 Chanel bracelet is a deal. Maybe I can harvest a kidney for the other one, or give up my first two children.

[Katie]

This blog is GREAT. I was directed here by the Fug Girls and I am so pleased I clicked on the link, this site is witty and well-written and I agree with so much of it!!
Thank you Wendy Glossed Over is going on my bookmarks!

[Bee]

I have a love hate relationship with this magazine. I love getting it in the mail, but once I'm done going through it, I wonder why I even cared. ; )

One day I will be able to afford the $25,000 ball gown and wear it to my weekly shopping trip at Target. One day.

[Doodle]

Maybe it's because all the magazine editors earn a fortune and consider $235 to be on the budget end of the scale.
However, when the nation is gripped in a credit crisis, isn't it a bit careless (or even stupid) to make a magazine of products no-one can afford. Isn't that journalism 101? Satisfy your readers' needs????

[Glossed Over]

I flipped through the September issue of Seventeen at the newsstand and MissPinkKate is right: it's a veritable parade of $40 sweaters and mall-shop accessible clothes. Of course, the styles won't work for all of us--I'm over 30, I'm not wearing a Roxy t-shirt--but it's fantastic to see reasonably priced goods.

Makyo: I think Lucky is so painful to read precisely because it used to be exactly like that.

Jessica: Selling a kidney is my expression, too. That's why we all have two, right?

Katie: Thanks and welcome!

Bee: If you wear a ball gown to Target, please post pictures. :)

Doodle: Actually, most magazine editors don't make a fortune. They do, however, get heaps of designer goods for free, which may well be why they're so nonchalant about prices.

[Budget Chic]

I always thought the clothes in Lucky were sky-high!! Shamefully too expensive for anybody with some good common sense to invest in. I glad I'm not the only one that thought the prices were off the charts. They needed to scale back on "pushing" the overpriced clothing for sure. I understand they need advertisers and all, but you got to keep your readers as well. Got to find a good in-between. I'm glad they are working on that.