March Glamour Looks Like a Teen Magazine!


dakotaLast Spring Glamour got a redesign with a new demographic in mind. (Behold the coveted 18-49 year old age group).

That’s a huge stop-gap. Let’s just say what pleases 18-year olds is often not likely to please 49-year olds, right? Worse, Glamour’s median age according to their media kit is 37. [ ]

If I had to guess I’d say the more important end of that demographic has suddenly become the 18-25 year old. That is who they are hitting hard. The March issue is a glaring example of skewing young.

The cover clearly looks like it could be the cover of Seventeen or Teen Vogue. A very underaged looking Dakota Fanning appears to resemble a 16-year old who’s been playing at mom’s vanity amidst the makeup and curling iron. (For the record Fanning is approaching 19.)

Sporting a red Mickey Mouse midriff and a sparkly mini, Fanning is the epitome of youth or more classically, teenybopper-hood.

In Shirley Temple curls, played up doe eyes and glossed red lips, the airbrushed perfection of what’s probably a pretty perfect face anyhow is meant to look even younger. I’d venture even Dakota doesn’t look this youthful in real life!

Even the cover lines, once crammed edge to edge are cleared now less those bright-eyed young readers strain their vision scanning so many good reads. Maybe a third of the typical cover lines now grace the front of the book in shades of pink and coral to compliment Fanning’s look.

But what about the 26-49 year olds Glamour wants to retain as they gain these younger readers? If I could be so bold I might tell them to smarten up and not pull off another such cover. I can’t imagine most women over 30 even thinking Glamour would contain something they’d want to read when they spy this cover.

Inside March’s 308 page volume is the typical fare, albeit the fashions and the models look about Dakota’s age. Yet along with Fanning’s profile, there’s a piece on the Jenner sisters (yes, Kris Kardashian and Bruce Jenner’s daughters) stepping out from behind their bigger half sibs at the height of their respective teens. Then there’s the article “That Thing all Guys Want in Bed these Days” (yes, ladies’ that thing), and don’t forget “Is it Ok for a Grown Woman to Love a Boy Band?”

Not seeing much for the over 30 crowd? Me either.

This issue anyway, looks more like a cross between Cosmo and Seventeen and certainly contains nothing much for a woman in her 30s or 40s.

Be careful Glamour. If you want to be a Cosmo or a Seventeen, fine. But let’s call your demographic what it is here: Teenaged.


2 responses »

  1. Jennifer, you are exactly right! I didn’t buy this issue of Glamour specifically for the reasons you mention. It looked like a teen magazine. The 18 – 49 demographic is overly ambitious unless they are trying to appeal to mother and daughter readers (and, yes, I am being facetious).

    • I just dont think there is any way a magazine can cater to the needs and interests of a 49 year old while catering to those of someone 18. It’s such a wide span as to be completely irrelevant to one end or the other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s