Glossed Over

Lucky's First-Ever Music Issue: Only Years After Everyone Else's

Lucky's August edition is the magazine's first-ever music issue. They're calling Kelly Clarkson "adorable," which is a suspiciously non-effusive word for the magazine that called Rachel Bilson a "sartorial Einstein." I mean, how high is the bar here? 

Anyway, since this is the music issue, I'll relay my thoughts in the lyrics of Nada Surf's 1996 hit song, "Popular":

Lucky, "You're so novel. What a good idea."

Really! It's a fantastic idea! It's so good, in fact, that several other women's magazines already do it. For instance, Self. 

And Elle. 

Also Nylon. 

And W.

Oh, and Marie Claire. 

But surely such blatant copying was intentional, right? After all, none of those other magazines is rumored to be going digital-only. So I can only assume that the music issue concept is focus group-approved, advertiser-tested, and a last-ditch effort at raking in some sweet ad cash before Conde Nast lowers the hammer. See you in the fall, Lucky! Maybe! 

Lowest Common Denominator: Lucky, September

981: According to the cover, the number of “ways to look amazing this season”

Gazillions: Approximate number of words in this issue. For better or worse (and, in the case of the never-ending article about drunk shopping, it’s definitely worse), there is now actual text in this magazine.

24: Items retailing for less than $50 featured in “Classic Pieces for Every Day”

116: Page on which Jessica Alba’s “Post-Baby Shape-Up Plan” appears, almost entirely devoid of context. I know Lucky is new to this whole writing-complete-sentences-and-forming-paragraphs thing, but they couldn’t follow up on Alba’s statement that she drinks a lot of water because she’s “starving”?

$60: As listed in “City Guide,” the price of a “Carrie Bradshaw-style pink tutu” sold by a store in Los Angeles, like a “Carrie Bradshaw-style” anything is a good thing.

$375: Price of a satchel that is, according to “How To: Wear Color,” the “easiest way to add a shot of color.” 

Zero: Explanation of how “easy” it is to spend $375 on a neon bag.

1, apparently: Words left out of the headline “Dress Like a French Girl. No, Really, a Real French Girl.” That word? “Wealthy,” unless it’s being French that somehow enables one to purchase a $550 dress and an $860 jacket. In which case, vive la France!

$250: Price of a cat-ear hood that Lucky suggests wearing “with a dose of irony, for the downtown hipster.” Behold the amazingly awkward exchange that ensued when I tweeted @LuckyMagazine about this ridiculous headgear! Veronica, aka @duncandesign, joined in to keep the conversation on track.

3: “Stylish New Yorkers” plucked from “the sidewalks of Soho” to model fall fashions in “Style on the Street.”

100: Percent of those random New Yorkers who are conventionally slim and pretty! Surprise!

Not 2: According to Jean Godfrey-June, the number of people permitted in the dressing rooms at Gilly & Hicks, Abercrombie & Fitch’s lingerie store. She says:

(You can’t both go in [the dressing room]; the surroundings are so...provocative...that liaisons are rumored to have occurred in the dressing rooms, hence, a ban.)

Infinitely: How weird it is that Godfrey-June would mention this, considering that in the story she’s shopping with her daughter.

2: Cover lines on the issue of Lucky Kids stuck inside the back cover that are uncomfortably reminiscent of the controversy over 10-year-old model Thylane Blondeau: “Dresses So Pretty You’ll Wish They Came in Your Size” and “I Want My Kid’s Hair Color!” (Related reading: this article about fashion brands using child models to normalize eating disorders.)

0: Interest I had in pulling Lucky Kids out of the magazine--until I needed something to shield my laptop with during a sudden downpour. 

Un-Lucky Break for Kim France: She's Out, Holley's In

It was announced this morning that Brandon Holley will replace Kim France as the editor-in-chief at Lucky. France is leaving Conde Nast altogether, according to a press release posted at Business Insider. Holley is currently editor of Yahoo!'s Shine and formerly was the top editor at Jane and ELLEgirl.

Jane's demise was attributed in part to its failure to attract high-end advertisers, a condition aggravated by the magazine's editorial focus on smaller designers and mass-market brands. As much as Lucky has veered toward pricey merchandise in recent years, it's still no Vogue.

Under its new leadership, will Lucky become even more inaccessible in order to meet this challenge? Why is France leaving? And can she take Jean Godfrey-June with her? Hey, internet, we need answers! (In the meantime, speculation is welcome.)

Know When to Fold ‘Em: Jane to Close

There’s no official announcement yet, but looks like we’ve seen the last of Jane.  Condé Nast is folding the magazine, which has reportedly struggled at the newsstand and with advertisers in recent months.  Fashion Week Daily says that editor-in-chief Brandon Holley and vice president/publisher Carlos LaMadrid will both leave the company.   

We’re unexpectedly saddened by this news.  We may have mocked Jane relentlessly, but we’ll miss it nonetheless.

For more:

Jane Magazine Folds (Fashion Week Daily)

Rumor: Jane Magazine Folds (Gawker)

Lady Down (Gawker)

Condé  Nast Folds Jane (Radar Online)

Edit: Radar Online has more, including the official press release announcing the closure.  And Mediabistro has a bit more about the affected staffers.

Lowest Common Denominator: Jane, June/July

287: Sum of numbers on the cover, not including page numbers, dates, or dollars (88, Summer ’07, and $100, respectively)

Non-zero: Chance that the blogger who wrote the “something bitchy” about Brandon Holley that she mentions in her “Editor’s Letter” is us.  We’ll never know for sure how many of us are sharing unflattering opinions of her online, will we?  Our story:  We wrote her a non-snarky letter (she did ask, after all) around the time we posted this.  She responded—to her credit, way, way faster than we ever answer email—and asked what it was we didn’t like about the magazine.  We wrote a lengthy, sincere (for us, anyway) response.  She said that Jane was different from other magazines, even if we didn’t think so, and she wished we weren’t so “mean” on this site.  We thanked her for her time.  End overly long personal anecdote.

2: Reader letters castigating Jane for putting Avril Lavigne on the April cover

2: Readers quoted in “Z: The Unstoppable Charm of Zooey Deschanel” suggesting Zooey for the cover

5:  Approximate number of times we hoped to never encounter managing editor Brekke Fletcher and friends in a movie theater while reading page 36.  Seriously, shouting smart-ass comments at the movie screen? 

1:  Absolutely apt quote about the minidress trend, from featured “Dress” stylist Tina Chai: “I like minis, but on some people they can be sort of vulgar—and tragic.”  Yep. 

Mercifully, just 2 we’ve spotted so far: Groaningly awful double entendres. From “The Extras” on page 46: “Nothing says ‘I’m into seamen’ like an anchor charm”; and from “Filthy Never Felt So Good,” page 80: “Scrub one out.”

4: Looks shown in “Don’t Fear…Ruffles,” page 52

4: Looks on that page that made us fear ruffles. It’s like 1987 all over again, only without the shoulder pads and the teased bangs.

Infinity plus:  Amount we dig “Cubicle Refugee.”  How about two pages next time, Jane?  We crave details!

109: Page on which we stopped reading the Zooey Deschanel article lest we overload on sheer preciousness.  The quote that slayed us?  “‘…I’m always looking for school uniforms, trying to squeeze into kids’ clothing,’ she says.  ‘It’s sort of a party trick, the way I can get myself into tiny dresses.’” Oh, fun!  At least we’ll always have Elf.  (As for the rest of the article, here’s what we missed.)

14: Words of the cult article on page 112 we’ve read.  We’re saving the rest of it—along with “It Happened to Me”—for a day when we think our life is rough.  Perspective!

46: Clothing and accessory pieces featured in “Basics, Only Cooler”

9: Number of those items priced under $100

5: L.A.-area women who surf included in “California Girls,” including pro Kassia Meador

1:  Article in another women’s magazine this month featuring Kassia Meador—Allure’s similarly themed “Going Coastal”

Jane's "Inspirational" Women Only Inspire Disappointment

Too much Kirsten Dunst is bad for one’s dreams.  We blame the one-two punch of taking in both Spider-Man 3 (thumbs down, by the way) and the May issue of Jane on the same evening.  Combine that with the news that the magazine will soon be the subject of a reality show, and we conjured a rather vivid dream about the Jane TV show last night.  Which would be weird enough, except that in our dream, Brandon Holley was played by Kirsten Dunst.

Despite our subconscious fixation with Kiki, it wasn’t her joint interview with Spider-Man co-star Bryce Dallas Howard—“Even Kirsten & Bryce Have Quarterlife Crises”? Excuse us for not feeling terribly sympathetic— or even the vaguely creepy collage of disembodied breasts on page 125 that stuck with us after a night’s sleep.  Rather, it was “30 Under 30,” which features

Thirty inspirational women.  (Okay, it’s really 31, but that’s not as snappy.)  We didn’t have room for all 57 million.

Aw, shamelessly flattering the readers.  Never a good sign.  (And we’re exempt, anyway—not only are we too old to awe Jane, but Brandon Holley thinks we’re  “mean.”  Sniff.)

Anyway, since our idea of an interesting woman differs so markedly from Jane’s, we wanted to take a closer look at their honorees.  And while there are some truly accomplished women on the list (did you know that someone could be a molecular biologist and a comic book artist at the same time?  What have we been doing with our life?), there are also some typically dubious choices.

For instance:

• Four actresses (Amanda Seyfried, Anna Paquin, Kristen Stewart, and Jessica Rose) and three singer/actresses (Ciara, Hilary Duff, and Lea Michele) make the list.  Hilary Duff, “inspirational”?  Only in that her music inspires us to stab a letter opener into our eardrums, but we’re pretty sure that’s not what they mean.  The piece’s intro cites a sushi chef, a student activist, and a political adviser, yet actress and singer/actress are the only two occupations represented several times over. 

Also, the demographics of the list were interesting:

•  Eight women—about a quarter of the list—live in New York.  Another six live in Los Angeles.

•  The average age of the listees is 20, thanks in part to the two 17-year-olds who made the list: actress Kristen Stewart and “Internet it girl” Cory Kennedy.  (And the fact that Cory Kennedy is deemed “inspirational” is indicative of how credible this list is.  She’s the absolute epitome of being famous for, well, being famous.)

•  Six of the women—three actresses, Ciara, Duff, and Broadway performer Michele—were dressed by the magazine for the shoot.  The others are, presumably, wearing their own clothes.  Nothing’s more inspirational than a woman dressed by a stylist!

We know it’s impossible to craft a list that will please everyone, and that no magazine would put, say, the first African-American polka dance champ (page 106) on its cover.  But Anna Paquin, who comes across as mature and level-headed, could take the cover. 

We’ll give Jane points for trying, but next time around, how about a list comprised entirely of non-famous women?  What about an in-depth exploration of their lives and issues instead of a handful of not-too-enlightening quips?  We’d love to hear the bodybuilder and the ballet dancer’s thoughts on skinny models.  Or why not let the transgender student and the carpentry foreman discuss gender roles? 

Instead, we get Stewart bemoaning how restricted she feels by being 17 (!), Ciara breathlessly awaiting her “prince,” and Duff spouting banalities about being famous allows her to be an inspiration to other women.  Give us a break, okay?  Were these the best quotes their publicists could come up with?  It’s great that Duff is learning to cook, but, somehow, the idea of a wealthy 19-year-old cooking her own dinner doesn’t exactly inspire us to lead a better life.

Dear Brandon: A Response to Jane's Editor

Dear Brandon,

Remember your first “Editor’s Letter”?  Remember how instantly enamored we were and how hopeful we were that you could salvage a magazine we once adored for its irreverent point-of-view, just because you wrote a succinct and impersonal message and didn’t act falsely chummy, Jane Pratt-style, and ask us to vote on whether you should get highlights?

Well, things have changed, and it’s not us—it’s you.  Let’s talk about your April message.

Before you get all up in arms about the changes you’re gonna see in this issue, let me first say that it’s all your fault.

Changes?  Based on reader suggestions?  Now you’re just teasing us, Brandon.

If you weren’t so forward, smart and insightful…

Uh oh. Resorting to flattery already?   That doesn’t bode well.

…about telling me what kind of magazine you want to read, I wouldn’t have tweaked a thing.

Well, there’s a tacit admission that she’s out of touch and knows it.  She wouldn’t have made any changes?  If everything at Jane was copacetic, then why was she even hired?  ’Fess up already, Brandon—after all, Jane Pratt barely manages to flip through new issues.

By the way, when you send me an e-mail, it goes straight to my Treo and not to some IT guy.

Which, you know, is the accepted way that email works.  But thanks for clarifying that for us!

So the editors here and I can now say beyond any doubt that you want us to feature fewer Hollywood bimbos…

…which is why Avril Lavigne is on the cover, since she’s a Canadian bimbo and therefore completely different.

You also love book reviews—sorry I cut down on them for a while…

Remember when you said your readers were “smart”?  Do you know a single smart woman who exclusively reads Jane?  Yeah, nor do we.

…and you’ll most likely shoot us if we ever try to give you pandering sex advice or diet info…

But pandering career advice and a pandering ad campaign are absolutely okay!

We’re just trying to get closer to what I think we all want Jane to be: a mirror for a culture of women who are opinionated, funny and smart, and who don’t suffer bullshit.

Okay, she’s right on this one minute detail.  That’s what we want  Jane (and, if we’re truthful, every magazine) to be.  Unfortunately, the reality is nowhere near that goal, as is painfully evident in the very next sentence:

My favorite item this month is the women at a dog park in Silver Lake, L.A.:  We asked them who their dogs would be if they were famous, and their answers were hilarious—we couldn’t have written them better.

Funny, she said she wanted to reflect “opinionated” women, so naturally we thought  Jane would seek out opinions on subjects that, oh, actually matter.  Not that asking women to conflate a dog’s personality with that of a celeb isn’t (sort of, perhaps, maybe if you’re in the right mood) funny. But it’s a terrible trifle to trot out as an example of the “culture of women” the magazine claims to promote.  Apparently modern women are defined not by their own personalities, but by the traits they conjure for their dogs.

As ever, e-mail me…

Check your Treo, Brandon.

Love,

Glossed Over

The Week: Anna Wintour More Fascinating to Herself Than to Anyone Else

•    Anna Wintour is named one of Barbara Walters’ “Ten Most Fascinating People.”  Clearly, Wintour agrees with the “fascinating” verdict—she has three portraits of herself hanging in her office.

•    Brandon Holley tries too hard to stay in touch with her 20-something audience by throwing herself a 40th birthday party complete with a street fight and police presence. 

•    Feel like crashing holiday parties?  Gawker and WWD have dates and locations. 

•    Lucky’s hired a stylist.  We really were concerned about Kim France’s ability to dress herself.

•    And this week’s cautionary tale comes from former Allure staffer Molly Friedman, who, after soliciting beauty products for the magazine and then selling them on eBay, is “pretty much banned from Condé Nast for life.”  Which we think is supposed to be an even worse fate than actually having to work at Condé Nast.

Photo of Anna Wintour from the New York Post

Jane Grooms Its Next Generation of Staffers

We don’t want to impugn the intelligence of Jane readers—though maybe we’d like to impugn the intelligence of Jane staffers. Just a little. Anyway. The true stories shared by readers in December/January’s “Are You About to Be Fired?” make us wonder exactly how these readers manage to be  employed—and how even more out-of-touch Jane must be to consider these workplace tales of adversity even remotely helpful. Or even remotely illustrative of reality.

We give you the story of 22-year-old Heather.

“I always get in trouble for stuff like putting the word yay in an e-mail, or ‘unprofessional’ chitchat, like asking a client with 10 kids if he’s Catholic…”

Guess what, Heather? That’s not ‘unprofessional.’ It’s unprofessional. (Ask a grown-up to explain that one to you, dear, as we’re sure the finer points of punctuation are completely lost on you.) Not to mention potentially offensive and certainly rude.

Then there’s Danielle, who, at 26, is old enough to know better.

“No one seems to have a problem with three-martini lunches, but I guess when it’s 8 a.m., it’s somehow inappropriate.”

Somehow.

And even more galling is that Jane doesn’t take a moment to explain to readers that inquiring about a client’s religion or showing up at work sauced is, you know, generally unacceptable. 

Hey, maybe such behavior is totally okay  at the magazine’s headquarters (and soooo Jane, too!). But why bother to educate the young, impressionable readers in proper workplace etiquette? Someone’s got to grow up and go to work for Brandon Holley.

The Week: What Didn't Happen on Glossy Paper

Here’s what else happened this week:

Glossed Over—that’s right, the very website you’re reading now—has joined the legions on MySpace. Validate us by adding us to your friends list.

Fashion experts decreed in the New York Times that the wardrobe in The Devil Wears Prada is not even close to what actual people who work in fashion wear. Of course, one of the more outspoken critics was Elle’s Anne Slowey, and we trust her judgment about as much as we trust that Anna Wintour is nothing like TDWP’s Miranda Priestly.

Jossip got hot and bothered about the prospect of eating pizza with Brandon Holley. We’d like to attend so we can query the Jane editor-in-chief about her drinking habits. Think that’s the kind of feedback she’s looking for?

And finally, The Devil Wears Prada hits theaters today. We can’t wait to see if the whole thing is more palatable on film than it was on paper—and to check out that wardrobe for ourselves.  We’ll be sure to discuss it next week. See you then!