Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Do Magazines Need A Signature Look?

By Style and Focus Lifestyle PR

I have a sorority sister who sells ad space in magazines and yesterday we stopped by a local cafe to buy a coffee (for her) and spiced pumpkin chai tea (for me) to just sit and catch-up. Some how we got on the subject of signature looks of magazines and Glamour came to mind of not having a signature look anymore.

As much as I like Glamour (I've been a long time reader since high school) I feel like it doesn't have a signature or unique look anymore. The improvements seem to have turned it into a whole new magazine. The layouts, articles and even the cover reminds me too much of Marie Claire. Other magazines such as Cosmopolitan have updated and given the magazine a fresh new look but it still has the feel of a Cosmopolitan magazine. As with any other product, improvements are important and sometimes necessary to stay competitive but with some products you still want to leave something that can be distinguishable to your clients (readers).

We were both very disappointed with Glamour's latest issue (November) with the 3D. From a marketing standpoint the 3D section is way to gimmicky and doesn't really add any value to the magazine except possibly to increase sales.

Once I got home, I starting flipping through a few older Glamour '08 issues sitting on the coffee table and noticed that you can really see a difference between the older and the last three (Sept., Oct., and Nov.) issues.

I think magazines should be updated with new looks but still have a signature look to it. The signature look will make it standout amongst all the other magazines on the shelf giving readers a unique feel for that magazine. Other wise what would be the point of buying that particular magazine if it's not different than the others.

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

No comments: