Something for the boys?

I fully admit that I have at best a layperson's familiarity with marketing and the theories behind what is effective in that arena. I have only my reactions to use as a gauge of efficacy, and I suspect I am far too analytical to fall into any target demographic.

With that out of the way…

I pass by the magazine rack in one store or another with some regularity. I like to think I am reasonably observant about the sort of photos that typically adorn the covers of the so-called lads mags. There's a scantily clad (egad, I really must find a new phrase for that)… There's a model or actress or celebrity of some sort in a state of undress that would be inappropriate for any sort of formal gathering. The purpose of the suggestive pose, I presume, is to inspire sexual desire in the heterosexual males observing the cover, thus making them inclined to purchase the magazine. It's undoubtedly not that calculating, but ultimately that's the motivation on the part of the editors who select the shot for the cover. It needs to be alluring enough to draw one's attention away from all the other magazines competing for the browser's eye (all the other models/actresses/celebrities in states of undress that month).

I'm not looking to debate whether this practice is sexist (of course it is). This is merely an exploration of whether they meet their intended goal.

So a few weeks ago I see the latest GQ on the stands and it features a brunette with her hair partially obscuring her face, with no discernible expression on her face, dressed in a bikini where the color doesn't stand out well against her skin tone, with a sheer camisole over her shoulders that she is lifting up with her arms in the same way a five-year old lifts up her dress when nervous.

While it did get my attention, the pose inspired in me questions about what the editors were going for. There seemed to be better shots of her in the pictorial inside the magazine (which one should have no difficulty finding online--why bother copyrighting anything?), but again, I am no expert in this field. Perhaps I don't have latent pedophilia and thus it isn't intended for me.

Beyond that, I couldn't even tell who the woman was. The woman in little (or no) clothing on the cover is always promoting something (a movie, a TV show, herself, etc.) and it seems like being identifiable is of relative importance with that pursuit.

Upon closer inspection (you can see the cover here), I noticed the text in the lower corner revealed her to be Jessica Biel, Esquire's "Sexiest Woman Alive" for 2005 (lucky for her that other magazine bestowed her that title before this shot was unleashed on the world). Looking again at the obscured face I finally recognized her.

It didn't seem like it should have required that much effort. I suppose the editors succeeded in drawing the effort. Bravo, GQ. No wonder I never read your magazine.

She was featured to promote her inclusion in the upcoming "film" I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. I don't know who her agent is, but he really isn't helping her in her expressed desire to be taken seriously as an actress. (If the movie is only half as awful as it appears to be from the trailer it may sneak above single digits in its Rotten Tomatoes rating.)

Angelina Jolie appeared on the cover of Esquire with nothing but a sheet in front of her, but she actually looked like an adult female in the shot. There is already talk of her getting another Oscar nomination. Certainly it could just be Ms. Jolie is more talented as an actress than is Ms. Biel, but one cannot help but wonder if another aspect of Angelina's talent stems from knowing how to pose when a camera is pointed at her (she does have a lot of practice in that area), and that influences how she is perceived by those who cast movies.

But as I noted up front, I have no expertise in how these things work. There is a reason why I am not publishing a glossy magazine.

There is also a reason I'm not buying those glossy magazines.

(And I'm certainly not timely in writing about these things.)