We Read It So You Don't Have To: Instyle's Indoctrinations in the Strange Ways of "Chiconomics"

It was inevitable: in the November issue, InStyle has at last graced us readers with its guide to living fashionably in these hardscrabble times. How do fashion mags try to convince us we're being thrifty while still urging us to purchase an entire new wardrobe every season?

These articles (and I've now read approximately 600 of them) tend to take one of three directions. They’re either:

a. A tone-deaf compilation of reasonably priced stuff. Hint to magazines: If I’m shopping for a $35 sweater, I’m not buying a $100 bracelet to wear with it.

b. A showcase of stuff that isn’t at all cheap paired with extensive justifications of why it’s still a good value—or pretty much every page in Bazaar

c. Further evidence of magazines’ utter estrangement from the real world

InStyle’s entry into this category, “The Laws of Chiconomics,” is an unholy mélange of the three. (Also, “chiconomics”? What, “recessionista” wasn’t obnoxious enough?) The article offers eight rules for smart shopping, and below, I’ve singled out the most egregious of their instructions.

There’s a two-page abomination called “The Red Shoe Diaries,” wherein the author embarks on an oh-so-relatable quest to find the “perfect” pair of Louboutins for less than $200. Nothing is more fascinating than reading about someone else shopping for shoes! 

I’ll spare you the suspense—you must be in knots wondering whether she found the red-soled objects of her consumer lust—and skip right to the end.

And it was there, in the wedges queue, that I fell hard, vanquished by a pair of black suede mary jane platforms with a silver wedge—part schoolgirl, part vixen and utterly breathtaking. Trouble was, even at half off, they were still $410. That may qualify as a steal in the Louboutin universe, but it was double my target price. Sold!

What compelled InStyle to consider this a lesson in bargain-hunting I can’t say—apparently, relentless worship of designer goods is an outstanding way to economize! As if the cognitive dissonance caused by hunting for Louboutins in a time of fiscal crisis isn’t enough, this is the conclusion the article draws:

The point of a budget, like a diet, is not just to stick to it most of the time, but to make sure that when you don’t, your splurge is really worth it.

Living frugally is so easy! Just disregard your budget entirely if there's something you really want!

Then there’s a quiz, “What’s the Real Price?,” to determine whether an item is actually worth its price tag. It’s an interesting idea, decently executed—until the scoring key, that is. InStyle offers two ways to determine your score:

For the numbers wiz

And

If math isn’t your thing

Apparently, being a “numbers wiz” equates to earning a passing mark from eighth-grade math, because it requires you to calculate incredibly complex percentages like, say, 60% of $500. And I was naïve enough to question my math teachers about whether I’d actually use their lessons in real life!

In any case, shouldn’t an article that assumes a reader’s interest in the economy, discounts, and budgets assume that same reader has a basic competency in arithmetic?

But the real fun comes with “The Super-Luxe Bag Pricing Index,” which helpfully enumerates all the other things you could buy instead of a $31,000 “extremely limited edition Chanel bag…handmade from incredibly rare large-scaled alligator.” This spread unleashes some real dilemmas for the bargain shopper—is it better to drop 30 large on one purse or on 81,036 organic eggs or on 25 years of monthly flower deliveries? Or would it be a better investment for me to spend $31,000 on 8.6 years of health insurance? What a quandary!

Strangely, there's no mention of what can be purchased with $3.99 other than a copy of InStyle. Next month, I just might figure that out.

Comments

[Becca]

Great post! I have this issue and found their "chiconomics" lessons very irritating as well. I will admit I found the Louboutins really cute but it would've been nice if the author could have actually stuck to her goal of finding them for $200 or less.

Also, I am totally with you on point "a" too. I've noticed that InStyle does this a lot. Not necessarily in articles where they're trying to show budget items, but they'll show an entire outfit with $600 shoes, a $1,500 bag and then a t-shirt from Old Navy (no doubt layered under a Burberry trench or something). Annoying.

[mamablanks]

Love this post! There are SO many things that irritate me about women's mags (although I still read them, natch) but the ridiculous prices of their outfits have always rubbed me the wrong way. I love the "splurge vs. steal" articles, too, where the "bargain" nail polish still costs $10, or the cheaper dress is still $300. Give me a break!

And thank you for calling out the "recessionista" thing--the first time I came across that so-called word I wanted to roll up my magazine and smack whoever coined it upside the head. I still might, should the opportunity arise.

[Emma]

I had to stop and do some deep breathing when I came across the word "recessionista." Then I rallied and managed to make it through the rest of the article with only a passing attack of the vapors when I realized that I've been wasting money on rent and electricity when I could have been saving for a large-scaled alligator bag.

[HopeR]

Sadly, $31,000 is buying me a little less than one year of college. (And in a couple of years, about 6 months of medical school.) Hmm... 9 "extremely limited edition" Chanel bags or a career with a starting salary of $400,000... tough decision...

[Jaci]

Ha! I love your last line!

Your reviews are so much more entertaining than the actual magazine. And I didn't have to pay $3.99.

[Athena]

It bugs me that with the economy going down the drain all these so-called style experts are acting like they are doing people a favor with their lame ideas for what they consider budget shopping. Every woman I have ever come across has had style on a budget long before fashion mags decided to turn it into one of their trendy pet causes. It's called prioritizing.

[Jaywalker]

Ah, sweet relief. If the way to credit crunch salvation is to disregard my budget entirely and spend myself into an endorphin coma, I am saved, since I do that already. Hallelujah! InStyle comes up with financial advice I can follow!

Please. Make them stop enabling me. What I need really is "Burn in Calvinist Hell for your vain extravagance" magazine. Why doesn't it exist? I so need it.

[KG 68]

What a dose of reality. I hope the two sorostitutes I saw at sleven tonight wearing matching Uggs read this. And I can call them sorostitutes, because I am greek and they make me look bad.

[Jessica]

I agree, as always, with your points here. In fact, I almost gave up my InStyle subscription, which I've had for years because honestly, all I can do is gawk at it. They never have anything in there that I can afford.

The Louboutin article was ridiculous. All of those shoes were ugly and $410 when your budget is $200 is not a deal. And the word "recessionista" irritates me.

[MrsBug]

See, "chiconomics" made me think that they were going to be using Chicos as the source for economical outfits. Crazy me!

And KG 68, 'sorostitutes'? Love it. I work on a huge university campus and this is so appropriate for so many of the greek girls I see.

[Bee]

And this is why magazines are going under. Because they offer nothing to the regular folk during these hard times.

[Andrea D]

Did they really say "math wiz"? Apparently not concerned about the spelling whiz, either, these mags.

[Heather]

this article pissed me off so much, particularly since it was partially written in response to a letter to the editor in which a woman was complaining that they feature too many high-end clothes. I'm sorry, but no matter how much money you make, what is "low-end" is Target, Wal-mart, and thrift-stores. I hate it when celebs and the fashion world try to identify with "normal" people. I recently read an article in which an actress was talking about not being ashamed to wear JCrew. I'm sorry, but JCrew's dresses start at $100 and go all the way up to $2000. And as someone who shops thrift stores, eBay, and places like JCrew, I'm offended at statements that jeans over $100 are easy on your budget. Whose budget? Certainly not mine.

[Heather]

also (just need to rant a little more. . .)
for something to be really good bang for your buck, the whole outfit can't amount to something ridiculous like $6000. Sarah Jessica Parker is constantly featured in her Bitten line in magazines. Now while I buy items from Bitten (because they are inexpensive and cute, not because of the name), I don't want an outfit assembled for me that has Bitten clothes paired with a Gucci coat and Chopard jewelry. I wish that celebrities would remember what low-end really is, and dress completely in low-end for a change. I think they'd realize (excluding some shoes, leather items, and detailed dresses) that the quality is just as good, or at least good enough to wear for a few years. I have a friend who spends a ridiculous amount of money she doesn't have on high-end items gracing the pages of InStyle. She says, "Things that cost more are just better quality. They last longer." Of COURSE clothes last longer when you have a closet that you only have to rotate every two months!! People who invest in these clothes will hav them for years, because they have a lot of clothes. But my JCrew shirt (made with cotton very similar to her Ralph Lauren shirt and on sale for $30) is worn every week. It might not be as fancy, but it does the job. Put us next to each other, and you might not be able to tell which is which. Unless you read magazines down to the stitches on items, in case you will notice. This is why ignorance is bliss.

"Math wiz"? Thank god InStyle isn't actually journalistic, otherwise their copy editor would really be embarrassed. Unless they meant to equate proficiency in math with Michael Jackson.

Anyway, maybe these "fashion" magazines should conduct a census of their readers. I may pull down a decent salary, but I still shop mostly at H&M and Target. The Seven for all Mankind jeans I own? eBay, $30. My Cynthia Rowley bag? Clearance at Loehmann's, $50. Let's get real: very few women never shop on a budget. I can almost guarantee that the InStyle editors get *their* high-end "investment pieces" from the fashion department's closet.

[TracieB]

I love this post, too. :0 I totally agree. I want nice clothes, and I might spend a tiny bit more for something I really really want, but I wouldn't spend a ridiculous amount like pretty much everything they suggest in a magazine to spend. I can't afford to "shop high and low." I have to shop low exclusively, pretty much. I've seen shirts that cost more than cars I've owned in especially higher end magazines like Vogue. That is crazy, even if you're rich, I think. I'm now being jealous about that, either. I would be scared to death to actually wear a really expensive pair of shoes or a shirt that high out. What if I rip it or spill something on it or my dog nibbles a great hole in it? That'd be too much stress. :)

I want to see nicely made clothes made more budget friendly. And I don't want to look exactly like everyone else walking around, either. Just because I'm not rich, it doesn't mean I should have to look not individual and like me. :)