Glossed Over

Ad in Glamour Creates a Contradictory Message

The November issue of Glamour features an amusing juxtaposition of editorial content and advertising. On page 48, in “Dos, Don’ts, News & Views,” the mag scolds men for checking out their co-stars’ cleavage on the red carpet:

And inside the back cover, an ad for Vassarette indicates their bra will inspire men to do just that:

(The text reads, “Hope you’re willing to sacrifice a little eye contact.”)

This particular ad sparked a minor disagreement in my house. Here’s what transpired when my husband spotted my copy of Glamour folded open to that page.

Him: Are you going to write about that ad?

Me: Yes. It bothers me. Like men need any more encouragement to stare at women’s chests?

Him: It’s not directed toward men—it’s a magazine, and an ad, for women. I think it’s kind of funny.

Me: Sure, you find it funny because no one’s ever talked to your breasts instead of your face.

Him: Well, what are bras for? To de-emphasize your cleavage?

So I’d love to hear some other opinions. Readers, what’s up with this ad?

Cosmopolitan: The Magazine for Fun, Fearless, Female Food Shoppers

Turns out that magazines haven’t always existed solely for the purpose of selling designer fashions and high-end cosmetics. Just nine years ago, one magazine tried to use its clout to sell dairy products!

Really.

In 1999, Cosmopolitan launched a line of low-fat yogurt and cheese in the UK. Why attach the Cosmo name to food? According to a survey, 65 percent of Britons had used edibles in the bedroom. Cosmo is, obviously, associated with sex. Hence the totally logical conclusion that linking food and sex would be the best way to flog a new range of milk-based products. 

Perhaps the survey didn’t indicate what kinds of foods the Brits were including in their amorous activities. Forgive my naiveté, but is anyone taking a wedge of cheddar into the bedroom?

Apparently not! Within 18 months, the line was deemed a failure.

Cosmopolitan may no longer be pushing food, but one aspect remains consistent: they were pushing expensive stuff. The yogurts, intended to be “sophisticated and aspirational,” were priced higher than competing brands.

Hat tip to my brilliant sister-in-law for the story. Thanks, Caryn! Photo from BrandGym on Flickr.

Out of commission • For a day or so, anyway, due to a minor illness. In the meantime, my September column is up at The Frisky, and I'll see you back here for the next installment of Working Girl Wednesdays.

Jennifer Garner Hawks Neutrogena Night Cream for "Bad Girls"

According to a new Neutrogena TV commercial, “Every girl has a past.” Even Jennifer Garner! Apparently, visible signs of aging are a punishment for all those times we “did some things that maybe we shouldn’t.” How convenient that Neutrogena has invented a potion that fights wrinkles and absolves sins! Because, you know, what I really look for in a night cream is forgiveness. Watch the commercial here.

Screencap from L.A. Deli via Oh No They Didn’t!

Update: An edited Jennifer Garner-only version of the clip has popped up on YouTube. 

The Language of Magazines: Is "Curvy" Completely Meaningless?

I should have known the term “curvy” was on the fast track to obsolescence when Marie Claire used the slender-but-busty Katherine Heigl as an exemplar of the body type. What makes a woman curvy? It used to be the word was bestowed upon those lovely women who, nonetheless, were heavier than the Hollywood-lollipop standard. Now? The definition has loosened. It seems any celeb who hasn’t retained Rachel Zoe as her stylist could one day be worthy of the term.

That’s not to say that celebrities—or anyone else—should be shunted into an easily definable body-type box. And fashion magazines should absolutely not be arbiters of what any woman should look like. Even so, is the pressure to be slim increased by expanding the definition of “curvy” to include slender women? Are women with different, heavier bodies being squeezed out by the broader definition of the term that once belonged to them? Does it even matter?

Decide for yourself. Here are three women who’ve recently been dubbed “curvy” by magazines.

Jessica Biel and her “curvy figure” in August’s Bazaar:

Kim Raver has “serious curves” in September’s Glamour:

And Anna Faris has a “curvy bod” in the fall edition of InStyle Makeover:

What do you think?

BlogHer Bound

 

Okay, not bound—I’m already there! Are you at Blogher, too? Say hi! Posting here will resume on Tuesday, but I’ll be Twittering until then.

Infomania's "We've Got You Covered" May Render Reading Obsolete

Wish you had the time and money to read everything at the newsstand, but worried about your blood pressure? Me too! That’s just one of the reasons I love the Current network’s show Infomania and the segment “We’ve Got You Covered,” which provides a snappy summary of the latest in periodicals. This week’s edition features Glamour, Vogue, Lucky, some other magazines I often buy but rarely read, and, um, a slime mold.

Head to Current’s site to watch Infomania in its entirety.

Where credit is due • I read an issue of Missbehave a few months ago and haven’t picked it up since, but I’m tempted by Issue #8 solely because of two of the cover lines. (Never mind the banana-hugging model.) In the lower left hand corner, it says

Perez Hilton is vomit

and in the upper left hand corner:

Lose 10 pounds! Or don’t! Nobody cares!

Both of those lines seem much more sensible than InStyle’s “Anne Hathaway Makes Fashion Fun!,” and I read that dreck every month.

PSA • Bazaar’s editor-in-chief Glenda Bailey is seeking a second assistant to hire cars, file expense reports, and wrangle interns. Oh, and are you psychic? The listing says candidates must “anticipate situations and offer preemptive solutions.” Well! Mediabistro has more details.

Editor's Note: Glossed Over Returns

Welcome back to Glossed Over! I’m so glad you’re here.

Taking a break from the world of women’s glossies was more trying than I expected. I started buying fashion magazines for myself twenty years ago, when I started junior high. Although I’m quite sure I’ve read every iteration of the lose-10-pounds-fast diet and the perfect skin cleansing regime, that didn’t stop me from glancing wistfully at the new issues on the newsstand as I breezed by to pick up Wired. Was I missing something life-changing by forgoing Glamour? How would I keep up with the newest sunscreen formulations and spring sandals? I don’t think I missed much, but that didn’t stop the pangs of uncertainty when I skipped Lucky for the first time ever.

My hiatus turned into something I didn’t anticipate: it proved to be a much-needed opportunity for me to figure out why, exactly, I’ve been under the spell of fashion magazines since I started purchasing Mademoiselle and Model in seventh grade. I’ll be posting some of my thoughts here in the coming weeks, and I’m eager to hear your experiences, too.

I also spent some of my time off reworking the site. Most of the changes should be self-explanatory, but I’d like to take a moment to point out a few things:

• The community page is where you’ll find links to keep up with Glossed Over on MySpace, Twitter, del.icio.us, and (very soon) Facebook. Feeds from Twitter and del.icio.us are in the sidebars; and I’ll publish new posts on Tumblr, so you can follow Glossed Over on your dashboard.

• The Tables of Discontent distill magazine contents to their essence, cataloging the predictable elements that appear in each issue. There are currently dossiers for Cosmopolitan and Lucky, and more will be coming shortly.

• New features are on the way, too. One of them, Working Girl Wednesdays, will debut later today.

Not everything’s changing, of course. Look for a new Lowest Common Denominator in the next few days. And I’m already anticipating my second annual live blog of Vogue’s September issue at the end of the summer. (Will the weakened economy result in a smaller issue than last year? I can only hope.)

If you have comments, tips, or suggestions, feel free to email me. And now, on with the show.