The other day I picked up the first issue of Hitched magazine. It is a new, quarterly, wedding mag, which describes itself as the "non-bridal bridal magazine." Which is absolutely correct, at least compared to the other publications I see in the shops, published for New Zealand and Australia. I made a little facebook comment about this,
They call themselves "the non-bridal bridal magazine." I call them "the only wedding mag that doesn't make me feel poverty-stricken, fat, ugly and inadequate, and the only one that actually kept my interest, and that I would consider actually buying." They promise, "no satin chair covers, princess tiaras or spray tanned brides, ever."
I even went to their website and sent them an email, telling them that theirs was the only wedding magazine I had bought apart from one ten years ago, and the only one I had ever seen where I was actually interested in seeing a second issue.
Anyway, I was looking through the bridal mags in Whitcoulls the other day to see if they really were as bad as I remembered, and yes, they were. They gave me an unpleasant sensation, which is part of the reason I now strictly limit my consumption of most magazines, especially fashion and lifestyle ones.
I felt vaguely uneasy, uncomfortable, awkward, and then became aware that I was too fat, not pretty enough, too poor, and generally felt totally inadequate. Then I felt like an outsider looking in, and then eventually like a tourist or anthropologist studying a different culture; I was looking at people whose lifestyle and customs bore little resemblance to my own. I suspected them of having somewhat different values, priorities, perhaps entirely different paradigms of thought. Yet these pictures were supposedly aimed at me, or people like me. They were supposed to hit a wide target, a common denominator, be part of and reflecting a common culture, in which I am immersed, and am a part of.
I found a lot of somewhat interesting yet somehow irrelevant stuff, a lot of stuff that I just assumed without checking would be far too expensive for me to afford ever, some stuff that was attractive or interesting yet just not what I was looking for. I also felt overloaded and awkward after only flipping quickly through one. There were a very few things I thought deserved greater attention, and a few things I felt were actually awful or even nightmarish. The magazine devoted entirely to wedding cakes was a bit better, but still, more weird or bland than inspiring.
When I got home and picked up Hitched again, I finally realised part of what had been staring me in the face all along.
A distinct lack of advertising.
Astonishingly, Hitched has very few ads. Most magazines have plenty, and the big fashion mags, including bridal, may be saturated with ads to approximately 50%. In the yearly September issue of US Vogue it almost doesn't matter, as many of the ads blend fairly seamlessly into the photo spreads, and anyway, you come to that mag, especially that issue, precisely to see what everyone is launching for fall fashion. In bridal mags, you could make the same argument, but I found it worse than Vogue could ever be; not all the ads blend very well into the content, and some of them never could, as there are just as many smaller text-dense ads as large full-page photo ads. This leads to one actually noticing the ads more, and a greater interruption of flow. I can't forget for a minute that I am being saturated with commercial messages to consume. I cannot pretend this is art.
Most mags of course must sell ads to make money. And of course if you pick up a mag about clothes you are probably interested in buying some, and want to know what's available. So it's almost staggering that Hitched has only seven proper ads in the whole thing. (By this I mean, ads for companies that are not the magazine itself. There is also a page devoted to subscription, and a page devoted to promoting the second issue, forthcoming in July.) And all those ads are full page, image-first things, with one big photo or montage, little text, are in keeping with the aesthetic of the mag, don't interrupt content, and seem possibly to be positioned in relation to articles or sections according to their colour and design, although that could be my imagination. There is no back cover ad, and no ads in the inside cover spreads front or back, just a wallpaper of pattern, just like you get in some classy hardback novels. This refusal to sell the most valuable advertising space must seem like financial madness to some, but makes the publication as a whole feel like something elevated above a run-of-the-mill rag mag. More like a book, perhaps about photography.
Well, books don't have ads, and they cost more than most mags. I'm sure it's no coincidence that Hitched costs more than the standard $10 or $12, running at AUS $14.95, or NZ $17.95. It's also quite likely that the ad space here costs more than in some other mags. Vogue was revolutionary in charging higher ad fees, on the basis that their mag was aimed at a less general market and more at a specific market, so advertisers could be sure that their ads were being seen by the right people, the people who could afford to buy their products and were interested in doing so. I imagine something similar is happening here. I also wouldn't be surprised if Hitched is forced to compromise a bit and run more ad space in future issues. Perhaps they actually couldn't get a lot of advertisers in this first issue and will naturally collect more as they become more established. But I suspect, and hope, they will continue to show the same thoughtfulness in selection and placement that I see here.
Will enough people get on board to make Hitched a going concern? Are enough people willing to pay more for a magazine with fewer ads and better content? Considering that the bespoke angle is, so far, heavy on bohemian and DIY, and not everyone likes that, will there be enough of an audience? With the continued success of what I like to call 'alternative mainstream' mags like frankie, smith journal, and Peppermint perhaps there will be. As fashions and aesthetic trends change, will this mag be able to change yet retain a consistent core?
Meanwhile, I feel certain that the care demonstrated about ads is a big part of the reason why I found Hitched to be interesting and inspiring, rather than nauseating, alienating and anxiety-provoking. It didn't promote products by making me feel bad and suggesting things to fix the condition it caused; it made me consider possibilities and feel good and enthusiastic, and suggested items that I might be interested in to enhance my already good life.
This seems to echo a trend I've dimly perceived in a few other places, including the afore mentioned 'alternative mainstream' mags, where advertising is limited and carefully chosen, and content is not just positive, but somehow less drenched in consumerism, while being in a commercial product promoting other commercial products. Perhaps it was the lack of slimming articles, or absence of cosmetic surgery ads. Perhaps it was partly that it had content somehow more balanced than just clothes, makeup and hair, or the lack of weird relationship questionnaires. It was certainly less in your face about things, with some features having no guides to pricing and availability at all - they seem simply meant to be ideas intended to inspire more ideas, those of the reader.
Perhaps most importantly, an overall trend seemed to be that it concentrated on people, on ideas, on relationships, on stories - which is what weddings are supposed to be about. Not about a public display of wealth, not about how rich the groom is as a trophy, or how beautiful and sexy the bride is as a trophy, or how many people are invited or how exclusive the venue or how over-the-top the ceremony and trappings. Weddings are about people, relationships, the stories of the couple, the family, the friends, the clan. They are about the knitting together of two people, and two families, and a community. The public acknowledgement of a private fact - the family now includes a new person. And that family might not give a rat's ass about the bride's spray-on tan.
I found a lot of somewhat interesting yet somehow irrelevant stuff, a lot of stuff that I just assumed without checking would be far too expensive for me to afford ever, some stuff that was attractive or interesting yet just not what I was looking for. I also felt overloaded and awkward after only flipping quickly through one. There were a very few things I thought deserved greater attention, and a few things I felt were actually awful or even nightmarish. The magazine devoted entirely to wedding cakes was a bit better, but still, more weird or bland than inspiring.
When I got home and picked up Hitched again, I finally realised part of what had been staring me in the face all along.
A distinct lack of advertising.
Astonishingly, Hitched has very few ads. Most magazines have plenty, and the big fashion mags, including bridal, may be saturated with ads to approximately 50%. In the yearly September issue of US Vogue it almost doesn't matter, as many of the ads blend fairly seamlessly into the photo spreads, and anyway, you come to that mag, especially that issue, precisely to see what everyone is launching for fall fashion. In bridal mags, you could make the same argument, but I found it worse than Vogue could ever be; not all the ads blend very well into the content, and some of them never could, as there are just as many smaller text-dense ads as large full-page photo ads. This leads to one actually noticing the ads more, and a greater interruption of flow. I can't forget for a minute that I am being saturated with commercial messages to consume. I cannot pretend this is art.
Most mags of course must sell ads to make money. And of course if you pick up a mag about clothes you are probably interested in buying some, and want to know what's available. So it's almost staggering that Hitched has only seven proper ads in the whole thing. (By this I mean, ads for companies that are not the magazine itself. There is also a page devoted to subscription, and a page devoted to promoting the second issue, forthcoming in July.) And all those ads are full page, image-first things, with one big photo or montage, little text, are in keeping with the aesthetic of the mag, don't interrupt content, and seem possibly to be positioned in relation to articles or sections according to their colour and design, although that could be my imagination. There is no back cover ad, and no ads in the inside cover spreads front or back, just a wallpaper of pattern, just like you get in some classy hardback novels. This refusal to sell the most valuable advertising space must seem like financial madness to some, but makes the publication as a whole feel like something elevated above a run-of-the-mill rag mag. More like a book, perhaps about photography.
Well, books don't have ads, and they cost more than most mags. I'm sure it's no coincidence that Hitched costs more than the standard $10 or $12, running at AUS $14.95, or NZ $17.95. It's also quite likely that the ad space here costs more than in some other mags. Vogue was revolutionary in charging higher ad fees, on the basis that their mag was aimed at a less general market and more at a specific market, so advertisers could be sure that their ads were being seen by the right people, the people who could afford to buy their products and were interested in doing so. I imagine something similar is happening here. I also wouldn't be surprised if Hitched is forced to compromise a bit and run more ad space in future issues. Perhaps they actually couldn't get a lot of advertisers in this first issue and will naturally collect more as they become more established. But I suspect, and hope, they will continue to show the same thoughtfulness in selection and placement that I see here.
Will enough people get on board to make Hitched a going concern? Are enough people willing to pay more for a magazine with fewer ads and better content? Considering that the bespoke angle is, so far, heavy on bohemian and DIY, and not everyone likes that, will there be enough of an audience? With the continued success of what I like to call 'alternative mainstream' mags like frankie, smith journal, and Peppermint perhaps there will be. As fashions and aesthetic trends change, will this mag be able to change yet retain a consistent core?
Meanwhile, I feel certain that the care demonstrated about ads is a big part of the reason why I found Hitched to be interesting and inspiring, rather than nauseating, alienating and anxiety-provoking. It didn't promote products by making me feel bad and suggesting things to fix the condition it caused; it made me consider possibilities and feel good and enthusiastic, and suggested items that I might be interested in to enhance my already good life.
This seems to echo a trend I've dimly perceived in a few other places, including the afore mentioned 'alternative mainstream' mags, where advertising is limited and carefully chosen, and content is not just positive, but somehow less drenched in consumerism, while being in a commercial product promoting other commercial products. Perhaps it was the lack of slimming articles, or absence of cosmetic surgery ads. Perhaps it was partly that it had content somehow more balanced than just clothes, makeup and hair, or the lack of weird relationship questionnaires. It was certainly less in your face about things, with some features having no guides to pricing and availability at all - they seem simply meant to be ideas intended to inspire more ideas, those of the reader.
Perhaps most importantly, an overall trend seemed to be that it concentrated on people, on ideas, on relationships, on stories - which is what weddings are supposed to be about. Not about a public display of wealth, not about how rich the groom is as a trophy, or how beautiful and sexy the bride is as a trophy, or how many people are invited or how exclusive the venue or how over-the-top the ceremony and trappings. Weddings are about people, relationships, the stories of the couple, the family, the friends, the clan. They are about the knitting together of two people, and two families, and a community. The public acknowledgement of a private fact - the family now includes a new person. And that family might not give a rat's ass about the bride's spray-on tan.
No comments:
Post a Comment