dyer@vaxuum.DEC (WE decided? MY best interest?) (12/13/84)
_Ms._ Magazine Advertisements__________________________________________________
All this talk about advertisements brings to mind one of my pet peeves:
>>> What are certain ads doing in _Ms._? <<<
You know the type. "Oil of Olay will make you beautiful." "Product X
will make you younger-looking." "Product Y will help you lose unsightly fat."
I did a survey of three random issues of _Ms._ (the ones I could find
laying around the house). Not counting classified ads, 28% of the advertising
space was for products to "improve" the way a woman looks.
In _Ms._?
<_Jym_>
:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer
::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts
::' :: `::
:: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
:: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
::..:' :: `:..::
::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not
:::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.chabot@amber.DEC (l s chabot) (12/14/84)
It's been oh six years since I picked up a _Ms._ magazine, but I did last month and noticed the same thing Jym reported. Except I didn't count and my impression was that it was higher, and I decided not to subscribe: I just felt that there was too much emphasis on feeling-good-about-yourself==looking-good, and what I'd remembered fondly, and perhaps mistakenly, was rather an emphasis more along the lines of feeling-good-about-yourself==awareness-and-control-of- health-and-self. Any body out there been reading it for a long time? Has it changed? Or is it me, as I suspect. Disappointed, L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (12/17/84)
Jym Dyer and Lisa Chabot brought up their observations that _M_s. magazine's ads seemed to be out of character for the magazine, noting the emphasis on physical appearance in the ads. They wondered if this is something new. It isn't. I happen to have a copy of the very first _M_s. ever, the premiere issue from Spring 1972. That one has ads for things like makeup, perfume, and other things that people thought "feminists were against". Just because you want to wear eye shadow doesn't mean you're not feminist! If you don't want to wear makeup, fine. That's what it's all about: the choice is left up to the individual. One remarkable thing about _M_s., though, is that whatever advertising they do accept, the sponsors have *no* effect on the editorial copy, unlike many other magazines (_W_o_m_a_n_'_s _D_a_y, _R_e_d_b_o_o_k, etc.). -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Night."
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (12/19/84)
> It's been oh six years since I picked up a _Ms._ magazine, but I did last month > and noticed the same thing Jym reported. Except I didn't count and my > impression was that it was higher, and I decided not to subscribe: I just felt > that there was too much emphasis on feeling-good-about-yourself==looking-good, > and what I'd remembered fondly, and perhaps mistakenly, was rather an emphasis > more along the lines of feeling-good-about-yourself==awareness-and-control-of- > health-and-self. > > Any body out there been reading it for a long time? Has it changed? Or is it > me, as I suspect. > > L S Chabot Ms Magazine has changed over the years (I started reading it 10 years ago and stopped after 2 years, then suscribed to it again 3 years ago). I find it less strident now, and more tolerant. The advertisements now are definitely more oriented towards the traditional "womenly" concerns of looking good than they used to be, and once a year, in May, they have an issue on health (which I don't particulartly like) which is, as Lisa remarks, more geared towards "looking good", than "awareness...". However, I do have to admit that the health issues of Ms are still much better information-wise than any other health issues of any other women magazines I have seen. I just wish they would also leave the junk out. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (12/20/84)
Ms. magazine does, indeed, have advertising that does not go very well with
their editorial policy. The last time we had this discussion in net.women, I
dug out my copy of the issue that had the editorial response to this question.
I still haven't unpacked from moving last September, so I'm not going to get
the text again. As I recall, the editors said, Yes they DID have such ads but
(as Mary Ann Zeszutko pointed out) they were different than other magazines in
that they didn't support the ads with their articles. Most other magazines
will not have articles contradicting the ads (Ms. does and sometimes in the
same issue) and many have supporting articles for the ads (eg. an article
about makeup techniques).
It would be nice if Ms. did not accept this type of advertising (would only
the liquor and car ads be left??). I still like the magazine, though.
--from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM
...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullanrobison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/20/84)
The advertisers who use Ms. Magazine have presumably done their
homework and determined that plenty of Ms. readers really will
be influenced by their ads. That's the real problem. If Ms.
were to commit suicide by dropping the offensive ads, it might help
to raise awareness a little, but surely the solution lies outside
the magazine, which is only reflecting the status quo.
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
{allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robisonjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (12/20/84)
It may interest those who have never looked inside one that _Playboy_ also
frequently carries articles in apparent contradiction to some of their
ads, and especially their cartoons (which, in general, I always liked the
least of anything in the mag, although I loved the pictures :-) ). I suppose
the feminist response would be that they are merely hypocritical, but one
may believe otherwise without an excess of abnormality.
neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist be,
(heven't I used this line before?)
Jeff Winslow