IT TURNS OUT THAT the cover on the latest issue of Men's Health (left) mimics a cover from 2007 (right). "It was not inadvertent, and it was part of overall branding strategies," the magazine's editor told the New York Post.
Is there anything wrong with that? Clearly, the magazine has found a formula that works for them and they continue to apply it.
Are they simply giving their readers what they want or are they ripping off their audience?
10 comments:
This is funny because I was at the dentist Saturday and read the magazine on the right and read the article because of TAYLOR LAUTNER! (leik, omg.)
I am a teenage girl btw, so I had no reason to be reading Men's Health.
So I guess their gimmick got to me =[ Because I definitely wouldn't have picked up the 2007 mag.
They're ripping off their audience no doubt, but its an effective way of appealing to a larger audience. While the print appeals to what guys want, the cover shot is what may draw the usually uninterested teenage girl (not too much different than Sydney here, haha) to pick up the magazine and check it out. Obviously it has worked to some extent.
I think that this technique will end up alienating the audience because people are going to start to say "Is that really all they think we care about?"
Putting Taylor Lautner on anything makes me not want to read and/or purchase it.
Pandering to the tween market for "Men's Health" is shameful, and they should be embarrassed. What a shit-tastic marketing scheme, imho.
I personally, would pick up the magazine just because Taylor Lautner was on the cover. I am stunned that it is a mimic from a 2007 cover. Who discovered the mimic? In a way, the magazine is giving the readers what they want, but at the same time it looks bad on the magazine's side. It is like they ran out of ideas so they had to resort to an old issue.
I think they are ripping off their audience. There is no reason why Men's Health shouldn't have a picture of a good-looking guy the cover of their magazine, and Taylor Lautner is definitely the man to have right now, but is virtually the same EXACT cover necessary?? I think they could have put him on there, maybe something about his abs, but be creative. Change it up from 2007.
I think they're ripping off their audience by selling them the same things over again. Some people actually pay for a subscription and while it may work for now, they're going to eventually lose their audience in the long run.
I don't think they're ripping off. It's a formula, which means it can be implemented in a different time period. Movie formulas have been movies for almost 100 years and they still work. Maybe some of the ways of doing workouts have changed over the past 2 years, or research has shown different ways to get effective 6-pack abs. They're not ripping off, but yes they may be a little lazy. It's also putting a new face on, targeting a younger audience. I don't watch Twilight, but I know that Taylor Lautner (right) is the huge star practically every girl is drooling over. Have I seen the trailer for New Moon on TV? Yeah. Is Taylor Lautner ripped as shit and not even 18 yet? Yeah. Do I wanna be jacked like that? Yeah. It sells.
The magazine is ripping off the audience.But they are also appealing. By trying to appeal to the audience they selling themselves short and they are also doing a disservice to their audience.
I think it's a perfect example of an audience that has become this soft to media that magazines need to resort to things like this to get people to pay attention to them. The audience of the present is more interested in candy for their brain. Journalism exists for the people, but if the people want this then journalism will begin to bend for them.
Post a Comment