amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (07/03/90)
Was in Boston the other day, saw something interesting that I thought I'd see what people thought. (Pushing the software piracy and other misc out of the way.) I was in Harvard Square at the Newstand near the T entrance. I was browsing across the magazines and saw the new issue of MacWorld sitting pretty right next to Playboy and Penthouse. It was like that at three other newstand also. I didn't really think much of it at the time. Then I saw the July issue of MacUser on E-Mail. Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed the last three covers of MacUser? What is going on here? I remember MacUser's EIC saying that their magazine was for the "power user," the die hard hackers, programmers, and users who were looking to get the most out of their Macs. And then they have a cover with a woman seductively licking a stamp for e-mail? Seems like using sex to sell is finally making it's way into the software industry. It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by taste.) Is sex really selling software? Is sexists sex really selling software? (Please, no flames. This is a trend that seems to be accellerating. I'm looking for a discussion on this.) Amiga's magazines are starting to use more sex on their covers. Women dressed in scanty bathing suits. in front of monitors. Etc. Where's it going? Does it matter? Will we see a row of beautiful women in bikinis holding a joystick and a monitor to sell the new version of Donkey Kong Four or WordMaker 6.0? ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchel) (07/05/90)
In article <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >Where's it going? Does it matter? Will we see a row of beautiful women in >bikinis holding a joystick and a monitor to sell the new version of Donkey Kong >Four or WordMaker 6.0? > >________________________ >Andrei Herasimchuk Hey, we can only hope, right? I do like the joystick metaphor. Eric ;~) ps. You just HAPPENED to spot MacWorld by Playboy, right? Which one were you REALLY looking for... :-) ;-) ;-} ;-] ;-( ============================================================================= Disclaimer: So go ahead. Sue me.
assmann@sirius.informatik.uni-kl.de (Franz-Rudolf Assmann) (07/05/90)
> ... >I was in Harvard Square at the Newstand near the T entrance. I was browsing >across the magazines and saw the new issue of MacWorld sitting pretty right >next to Playboy and Penthouse. It was like that at three other newstand also. > ... >And then they have a cover with a woman seductively licking a stamp for e-mail? >Seems like using sex to sell is finally making it's way into the software >industry. It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by >taste.) Is sex really selling software? Is sexists sex really selling >software? (Please, no flames. This is a trend that seems to be accellerating. >I'm looking for a discussion on this.) > ... Off course Andrei, SEX is selling cars (Fiat, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, ...), TVs, VCRs, Vacation Trips, and so on. It looks like to me that today sex is used to sell almost everything. But how about Computer Magazines for the Bit hackers? These people buy their magazines in order to get information, and they don't mind a "nice" cover. But I am sure that they would switch to another magazine if the magazine is just composed of cover sheets. (Well, I have such a feeling that already a few off such magazines are around.) And how the about people that are buying the magzines depending on the cover? Well, I guess paying a couple off dollars just for a cover sheet if you don't get the reset is quit expensive. ---Franz
chris@imagine.ADMS-RAD.Unisys.COM (Chris Sterritt) (07/06/90)
In article <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed the >last three covers of MacUser? >[...] >And then they have a cover with a woman seductively licking a stamp for e-mail? >Seems like using sex to sell is finally making it's way into the software >industry. Two things: First, it's been fairly entertaining to read the 'Letters to the Editor' column in MacUser, to see people flame the art-director WHO THEY ASSUME is a man, because of all the sexy-woman stuff in the articles (it's only now getting to the cover). Imagine their surprise when MacUser tells them it's a woman who designed all those layouts! >It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by >taste.) Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. --chris sterritt ============================================================================ = Chris Sterritt - chris@adms-rad.unisys.com = = "Tune in next week for 'Rocky 20'. The story of 20 rocks. Very heavy = = stuff." -- Alastair Cookie (Cookie Monster), Monsterpiece Theater = ============================================================================
dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (07/06/90)
In article <290@imagine.ADMS-RAD.Unisys.COM>, chris@imagine.ADMS-RAD.Unisys.COM (Chris Sterritt) writes: > In article <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: > >>It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by >>taste.) > > Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. > The editors must have been convinced that sexy covers would not drive the real buyers away although some of them may have different taste (it's not porno magzine after all), but would lure some buyers who would otherwise not interested in it. Would somebody call for a boycott if they keep have the same kind of cover design? guess nobody would. The readership would only increase. dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
chrisb@hubcap.clemson.edu (Chris Behrens) (07/07/90)
In article <4486.2694227d@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, dhsy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > >>It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by > >>taste.) > > > > Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. Awe come on... (No pun intended!) Get real, as long as the entire magazine doesn't turn to smut what do you care what the cover looks like ??? Remember "You can't judge a book by its cover." > > The editors must have been convinced that sexy covers would not drive > the real buyers away although some of them may have different taste > (it's not porno magzine after all), but would lure some buyers who > would otherwise not interested in it. > > Would somebody call for a boycott if they keep have the same kind of > cover design? guess nobody would. The readership would only increase. I agree. I am not a MacUser reader, but just seeing/hearing about this new cover concept has me curious. I may not buy a magazine, but I may find one just to see what the fuss is all about. :-)
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (07/07/90)
In article <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: }Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed the }last three covers of MacUser? What is going on here? . . . } }And then they have a cover with a woman seductively licking a stamp for e-mail? }Seems like using sex to sell is finally making it's way into the software }industry. It's a trend that I'd like to see stopped. (Not by law, but by }taste.) Is sex really selling software? Is sexists sex really selling }software? (Please, no flames. This is a trend that seems to be accellerating. }I'm looking for a discussion on this.) Ok, then here's mine: I think that certain people will always find "evil" (or bad taste, or a disturbing trend, or ...) where they want to find it. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I myself saw nothing particularly "seductive" about the woman-licking-the-stamp cover. All I saw was an eye- catching, attractive cover. What is so WRONG with using attractive people in advertisements and on magazine covers? To refer to the cover in question as using sex to sell is going way, way overboard and finding bogeymen in your closet (not to mention calling into question your definition of "sex".) }Amiga's magazines are starting to use more sex on their covers. Women dressed }in scanty bathing suits. in front of monitors. Etc. Sounds like I bought the wrong machine . . . (Well, shucks, I hadda get in just one cheap shot.) }Where's it going? Does it matter? Will we see a row of beautiful women in }bikinis holding a joystick and a monitor to sell the new version of Donkey Kong }Four or WordMaker 6.0? Let's put more emphasis on your second question: Does it matter? Why are you even spending your time raising this issue? Why do you feel that it is important? Did the MacUser cover in question inhibit you from buying the magazine? Did it detract from your enjoyment of the contents? Did it interfere with your ability to obtain the information you needed? If we do see a row of women in bikinis selling WordMaker, what difference will that make to you? You wanted discussion, so tell me what is wrong with using attractive women in advertising? Why is it any more "wrong" than using cute babies, or cuddly puppies, or a cute animated helocar, or an imitation Charlie Chaplin, or any of the other thousands of ways that advertisers try to get your attention? --James Preston
hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edu (David Hairston) (07/07/90)
[amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:]
[] Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed
[] the last three covers of MacUser? What is going on here? . . .
{... stuff deleted ...}
[] I'm looking for a discussion on this.
when i got the august issue (with my expectation raised) was i ever
disappointed ... i considered cancelling because the cover was all
text! what _is_ going on here? 8^)
-dave-
hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edukaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (07/08/90)
hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edu (David Hairston) writes: >[amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:] >[] Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed >[] the last three covers of MacUser? What is going on here? . . . >{... stuff deleted ...} >[] I'm looking for a discussion on this. >when i got the august issue (with my expectation raised) was i ever >disappointed ... i considered cancelling because the cover was all >text! what _is_ going on here? 8^) > -dave- if you are refering to the use of women as objects and / or the degading things they are doing with feamle images and sex on the last 3 to 4 issues of MacUser yes, I did notice this. I even felt like posting about it but never got around to doing so. I think that i get enough of that type of advertizing ( using sex and sexually suggestive (licking the stamp) images to promote sales and increase attentionspan) during the 4 or so hours of TV that i watch each week. MacUser is a good mag and does not need to resort to this type of crap. Also, it is ludicrous(sp?) to have these kinds of images associated with Computers and Macs in specific.
eggplant@walt.cc.utexas.edu (johan van Zanten) (07/08/90)
In article <1975@key.COM> jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston) writes: >Let's put more emphasis on your second question: Does it matter? Why are >you even spending your time raising this issue? Why do you feel that it is >important? Did the MacUser cover in question inhibit you from buying the >magazine? Did it detract from your enjoyment of the contents? Did it >interfere with your ability to obtain the information you needed? If we >do see a row of women in bikinis selling WordMaker, what difference will that >make to you? You wanted discussion, so tell me what is wrong with using >attractive women in advertising? Why is it any more "wrong" than using cute >babies, or cuddly puppies, or a cute animated helocar, or an imitation Charlie >Chaplin, or any of the other thousands of ways that advertisers try to get >your attention? > >--James Preston Well, this is quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions. MacUser has done this for at LEAST the last four months, and it really bugs me. I feel that no person should be thought of as merely an object. This is inhumane, and is what MacUser is doing. I will not support a company that makes money at the expense of other people's humanity. No, the women are not totally nude and the magazine is not all "smut" as someone observed. But the CONSISTENT use of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it. I'll get my info from the Internet, or from other Macintosh magazines. (I have a subscription to MacWorld which i may cancel because of alleged "dunning" or nefarious sub- scription attempts/practices.) Johan van Zanten "Don't you threaten me with a dead fish." (eggplant@walt.cc.utexas.edu) (from the movie "Withnail and I")
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (07/08/90)
In article <9591@hubcap.clemson.edu>, chrisb@hubcap.clemson.edu (Chris Behrens) writes: > > Would somebody call for a boycott if they keep have the same kind of > > cover design? guess nobody would. The readership would only increase. > > I agree. I am not a MacUser reader, but just seeing/hearing about this > new cover concept has me curious. I may not buy a magazine, but I may > find one just to see what the fuss is all about. :-) I occasionally look at MacUser, MacWorld etc. when they have an article about something that interests me - which is getting to be more and more seldom. If they had good articles, maybe I would consider buying them. I consider the covers a symptom of declining content - adding more layers of packaging instead of improving the product... Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (07/08/90)
; Well, this is quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but ;i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions. MacUser has done ;this for at LEAST the last four months, and it really bugs me. I feel that ;no person should be thought of as merely an object. This is inhumane, and is ;what MacUser is doing. I will not support a company that makes money at the ;expense of other people's humanity. No, the women are not totally nude ;and the magazine is not all "smut" as someone observed. But the CONSISTENT u ;se ;of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from ;enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it. I'll get my info from the ;Internet, or from other Macintosh magazines. (I have a subscription to ;MacWorld which i may cancel because of alleged "dunning" or nefarious sub- ;scription attempts/practices.) Wait a minute. Are you telling us it is inhumane to take a picture of a woman? It's inhumane to put her on the cover? Why don't you say that about Vogue or SI or Redbook? Why do women let people put them on the cover of magazines if it so completely destroys their humaniny? Would YOU object if MacWorld wanted to put you on the cover licking a stamp? What is so evil and pornographic about someone's face? It seems that you are the discriminator. You object to a woman on the cover, but I hear no objections about putting a man on the cover. You discriminate against a woman because she is attractive. Maybe you are gay or something, but that doesn't give you the right to say what sex is allowed to be seen on computer magazines!
ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) (07/08/90)
; Well, thisis quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but ;i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions. MacUser has done ;this for at LEAST the last four months, and it really bugs me. I feel that ;no person should be thought of as merely an object. This is inhumane, and is ;what MacUser is doing. I will not support a company that makes money at the ;expense of other people's humanity. No, the women are not totally nude ;and the magazine is not all "smut" as someone observed. But the CONSISTENT u ;se ;of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from ;enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it. I'll get my info from the ;Internet, or from other Macintosh magazines. (I have a subscription to ;MacWorld which i may cancel because of alleged "dunning" or nefarious sub- ;scription attempts/practices.) Wait a minute. Are you telling us it is inhumane to take a picture of a woman? It's inhumane to put her on the cover? Why don't you say that about Vogue or SI or Redbook? Why do women let people put them on the cover of magazines if it so completely destroys their humaniny? Would YOU object if MacWorld wanted to put you on the cover licking a stamp? What is so evil and pornographic about someone's face? It seems that you are the discriminator. You object to a woman on the cover, but I hear no objections about putting a man on the cover. You discriminate against a woman because she is attractive. Maybe you are gay or something, but that doesn't give you the right to say what sex is allowed to be seen on computer magazines!
John.Starta@p90.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (John Starta) (07/09/90)
In article <kaveh.647376603@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > if you are refering to the use of women as objects and / or the degading > things they are doing with feamle images and sex on the last 3 to 4 issues > of MacUser yes, I did notice this. Are we getting the same MacUser? The last four (4) issues (May 1990 through August 1990) of MacUser included only two (2) female images on the cover. Neither of them were sexual or provocative in my opinion. For the record, the May 1990 issue has a woman standing behind three nineteen inch monitors with her hands on her hips. Her face, shoulders and elbows are showing. Sexually stimulating? No. The cover of the July 1990 issue features a monitor with [the lower part of] a face licking an "e-mail" stamp. Provocative? Not in my book. >I even felt like posting about it but never got around to doing so. You can rest easy now; your opinion has been heard worldwide. >I think that i get enough of that type of advertizing (using sex and sexually >suggestive (licking the stamp) images to promote sales and increase attention >span) during the 4 or so hours of TV that I watch each week. Ummm.. excuse me, but how else do you use a stamp if you don't lick it? >MacUser is a good mag and does not need to resort to this type of crap. Also, >it is ludicrous(sp?) to have these kinds of images associated with Computers >and Macs in specific. You wouldn't happen to be one of those people who think a SCSI is "sexy" would you? John PATH: 1012/90 -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!15.90!John.Starta Internet: John.Starta@p90.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org
John.Starta@p90.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (John Starta) (07/09/90)
In article <HAIRSTON.90Jul7121551@henry.ece.cmu.edu> hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edu (David Hairston) writes: >when i got the august issue (with my expectation raised) was i ever >disappointed ... i considered cancelling because the cover was all >text! what _is_ going on here? 8^) LOL! Disappointed were you? There is always next month. ;) John PATH: 1012/90 -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!15.90!John.Starta Internet: John.Starta@p90.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (07/09/90)
In article <kaveh.647376603@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > MacUser is a good mag and does not need to resort to this type of crap. Common people, it's just a picture of a woman licking a stamp. If you think it's "dirty", it's because you have a dirty mind.
steve@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin) (07/09/90)
In article <kaveh.647376603@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >[amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes:] >[] Stop right there. Have you seen the cover of MacUser? Have you noticed >[] the last three covers of MacUser? What is going on here? . . . >{... stuff deleted ...} >[] I'm looking for a discussion on this. > >if you are refering to the use of women as objects and / or the degading things >they are doing with feamle images and sex on the last 3 to 4 issues of MacUser >yes, I did notice this. I even felt like posting about it but never got around >to doing so. I think that i get enough of that type of advertizing ( using >sex and sexually suggestive (licking the stamp) images to promote sales and >increase attentionspan) during the 4 or so hours of TV that i watch each week. > MacUser is a good mag and does not need to resort to this type of crap. >Also, it is ludicrous(sp?) to have these kinds of images associated with >Computers and Macs in specific. You know, I have recently seen a parallel conversation in 'Wine Spectator' magazine. They had a picture of a woman in a bathing suit on the beach with a bottle of Chardonnay. The issue was dedicated to reviews of Chardonnays. Lots of people wrote in complaining about the woman on the cover, but the editors said that they were trying to show that wine was could be enjoyed in a lot of places, not just around the dining table. I got the definite feeling that if it had been a man on the beach there would have been no letters. Why does a woman's picture make her an object, while a man's does not? I think women will have achieved full equality when we can have pictures of either sex on magazine covers, and not get inundated with letters to the editor about making people 'objects'! -- Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer! (...uswat.uswest.com!uswmrg2!steve)
dorazio@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Viki) (07/10/90)
In article <22093.269787D7@stjhmc.fidonet.org> John.Starta@p90.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (John Starta) writes: >Neither of them were sexual or provocative in my opinion. >For the record, the May 1990 issue has a woman standing behind three nineteen >inch monitors with her hands on her hips. Her face, shoulders and elbows are >showing. Sexually stimulating? No. The cover of the July 1990 issue features a >Not in my book. hmm not sexually stimulating? I hate to say this but I wonder what you find sexually stimulating? I find both covers stating a sexual and provocative interest in computers... I think that the woman who does the cover is exploiting her own sex. If the woman was dressed in what we consider normal work clothes I might think otherwise but the dress she is wearing on the cover of the may 1990 issue is tight fitting and shoulderless. Something I am sure that if I came to work in I probably would be highly harrassed and get little done in. Oh and I almost forgot the heels.... I have heard several renditions on heels, what are mens honest opinion on them? Beleive me I know the answer to that and it usually is not clean when they are that high! >Ummm.. excuse me, but how else do you use a stamp if you don't lick it? As far as the issue with the woman licking the stamp that is a different issue. Anyone can lick a stamp but no one holds a stamp that way and no woman wearing that much lipstick ever licks a stamp. This is just my opinion of course and I am a woman. I don't agree with seeing a woman exploited on a computer magazine. Other magazines that sell fashion, clothing and are informational to womanly topics are in a different category all together. I also don't agree with using woman to sell cars and other things but of course it is up to those woman to do what they want and it is up to those company's to sell there product anyway they want within the law. Viki Dorazio dorazio@vela.acs.oakland.edu To know is nothing at all; dorazio@OAKLAND to imagine is everything. Academic Computer Services Anatole France 106 Kresge Library Oakland University Rochester Mi. 48309-4401 USA
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (07/10/90)
In article <33520@ut-emx.UUCP> eggplant@walt.cc.utexas.edu (johan van Zanten) writes: > Well, this is quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but >i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions. Ok, but what about the questions that don't have "yes"/"no" answers? >MacUser has done >this for at LEAST the last four months, and it really bugs me. I feel that >no person should be thought of as merely an object. This is inhumane, and is >what MacUser is doing. Inhumane? Wow, that's a really strong charge. I just don't see what your basis is for making it. I think that myself and a lot of other people are not quite so simple-minded that we immediately relegate a person (or even an entire class of people) to the status of "object" solely because we see an attractive picture of that person. >I will not support a company that makes money at the >expense of other people's humanity. Please explain to me how a picture of a woman in a swimsuit (a very demure suit and pose) sitting in a floating chair has any effect on her humanity. Please explain to me how a picture of a woman in a very proper dress (although rather strangely colored) has any effect on her humanity. Please explain to me how a picture of a woman licking a stamp has any effect on her humanity. >But the CONSISTENT use >of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from >enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it. How does it prevent you from enjoying it? Obviously, it goes without saying that you can buy what you want, I just don't understand how the picture on the cover interferes with your enjoyment of the contents. And you ignored what I thought was the most important question in my previous posting: what is wrong with using attractive women in advertising? You say it is "inhumane", but I just don't see how. And why is it any more "wrong" than using cute babies, or cuddly puppies, or a cute animated helocar, or an imitation Charlie Chaplin, or any of the other thousands of ways that advertisers try to get your attention? --James Preston
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchel) (07/10/90)
Excuse me, but this is really a topic for another news group. It is essentially a question of taste in advertising and has nothing to do with computers per se. I have my own opinions, but I will not express them here. That only feeds the flames. Eric
steve@uswmrg2.UUCP (Steve Martin) (07/11/90)
In article <892@mdavcr.UUCP> van-bc!mdavcr!ewm writes: > >Excuse me, but this is really a topic for another news group. It is >essentially a question of taste in advertising and has nothing to do >with computers per se. > >I have my own opinions, but I will not express them here. That >only feeds the flames. > >Eric Thanks for you opinion Eric! -- Steve Martin | Nothing I say can be held against U S West Marketing Resources Group | Me or my employer! (...uswat.uswest.com!uswmrg2!steve)