MORE is Less?

By Guest Blogger, Mary Schmidt, Marketing Troubleshooter

NYT: The Readers Are Over 40. (Don’t Tell Advertisers.)

"...The average More reader makes about $93,000, around $30,000 more than the average for Vogue, Allure or Harper’s Bazaar, according to Mediamark Research and Intelligence. But More has hardly a luxury ad in it.

And they penalize the magazine because its readers are female. The More reader makes a lot more than the average reader of Esquire, at about $66,800, and GQ, at about $75,100. But where GQ, Esquire, and the younger women’s magazines are filled with ads for designer clothes, fragrances and expensive accessories, the ads in More suggest that when rich women hit 40, they yearn for cheap processed foods."

Hmmm...I'm not big on luxury items, but I also don't buy much processed food, cheap or otherwise.  But - darn - I'm OLD, so I'm not the optimum target for most companies.  Seems sometime in the 1950s ad agencies decided the best market was all those "young and stupid" boomers out there.  We grew up; they didn't.

Friday Fun Seque: For Craig Ferguson's hilarious explanation of advertising, go here. And, while you're over there, check out Michele Miller's latest post on how we women are loving Tarantino's latest flick.  Seems neither she nor I are rushing to see The Time Travelers Wife (yawn) even though Michele DOES like the color pink (I forgive you Michele.) 

...Back to our regular post...I subscribed to More when it first launched.  Liked it; didn't love it. Athough was more interesting than - say - Vogue - it was still heavy on how to look ab fab even when we're OLD. (The best article back then was Jamie Lee Curtis "coming out" as a middle-aged woman and showing the magic that turned her into a cover girl. Now, that was fun and encouraging.) 

So, after reading the NYT article, I visited the More web site.  At first glance (and even second) - it was difficult to see how it's really all that "different" in tone than any of the other femme fashion/sex/glam it up magazines. Articles include: "Cougar Bait, 32 Younger Men We Love," "Lingerie Must-Haves For Fall,"   and "How I Finally Got The Body I Wanted."  All of which could just as easily be in Cosmopolitan (one of my must-reads in college when all that stuff re sex and men seemed so NEW!)

The lead humor article is "How Not To Act Old On Facebook." (First tip: Don't screw up the picture.)  According to the article,  Women over 35 are the fastest growing demographic on Facebook

Which bears out other research and I did enjoy the article (while written for fun; it contains some good advice.) However, the article is illustrated with a photo of what looks like a size zero model with a can over her head (?!).  

Now, I know it must be very difficult to publish a magazine...and keep it going for years...and the last couple of years have gotten pretty dire, with publishers scrambling for survival.  But, desperation often leads to Plan P (for panic) in marketing which never works out well.  The article ends with this depressing little bit:

"...So More is trying to get that average age a bit lower, by promoting subscriptions online, where readers tend to be younger, and by reaching businesswomen, for example, at airport newsstands.

“What would make it easier to sell advertisements is a younger age,” said Ms. Stanich, the publishing director..."

Sigh. In order to survive, the magazine wants to be - um -  more like all the others?  Too bad.  

By contrast, Garden & Gun, (How's that for a title?) after almost shutting down, seems to be on the upswing, including more ad pages.  "With a total circulation of 220,000 and distribution in all fifty states, circulation has grown 130% since the premier issue in Spring 2007 and advertising is trending up."

Should be noted that this a VERY niche-focused high-end gloss magazine; the target market is Affluent Southerners who buy things like $25,000 shotguns.  Yes, I know the combination of Garden and Gun sounds bizarre, but it makes perfect sense to anyone from a Southern background.  I subscribe (No, I don't buy guns - even cheap ones.) Why?  Because it's very different AND because it has wonderful articles by people like Julia Reed. 

Last - but not least - I love Holly Hunter's work...but whenever I watch her show, "Saving Grace" I have to ponder - will this woman ever dress age-appropriate?  Her character is a police detective in Oklahoma City but somehow I don't think many policewomen wear skin-tight low-rider jeans and strappy little peekaboo tops to work...And, the hair, the hair...I applaud Ms. Hunter for being in such great shape and she is an actress, so have to cut her some slack.  But, most real 51-year-old women (like me) don't look good in those type of clothes. We don't need to default to flowered mu-muus, but c'mon...

So, More? How about it?  What if you really celebrated women 40+ - as you say in your masthead?

Comments

[Jennifer Lamb]

Oh, the comments on MORE make me sad. I subscribed to the now defunct PINK magazine (print edition) and they moved all of their former subscribers over to MORE magazine for the duration of their subscriptions.

Now I'm not looking forward to my first issue. I was really disappointed when PINK went under as I loved their content and saved the 6 or so editions I received after someone told me about them. I was looking for a magazine for business women that addressed issues women face outside of childcare and work-life balance. (both valid issues, but I was/am looking for broader coverage of relevant issues like leadership, promotional criteria differences, negotiation pointers etc.) I will review my first issue when it shows up (maybe never at this rate?) and hope for the best.

[Dr Wright]

Perhaps they changed their target market from when they first started.
They sound like they are chasing money but confused.
Dr. Letitia Wright
The Wright Place TV Show
http://wrightplacetv.com
www.twitter.com/drwright1