Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:25 PM
Tue Nov 24
62 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email | Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Email
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/10/09
11/10/09
And just what is the "theory" behind the poor sales if it isn't about photoshop? The author again states s/he has a "theory" at the beginning, then never explicitly states what that theory is...am I missing something? Is it that Zooey is in a setting, whereas Kelly is in blank white backdrop? #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
For me personally, since I read an obscene number of magazines a month for work and find (found) a few somewhat enjoyable, what caused me to permanently let go of Self wasn't the content as much as the pubic attitude of the EIC.
Self is a magazine that thought it encouraged women to be the best versions of themselves. Kelly Clarkson has never minced words about her weight, and has said that she is who she is, no matter her size; she maintains her confidence no matter what she looks like. That's healthy, and it's a good message to send to readers, so I understand her as the choice for a cover model. But to alter Clarkson's image to appeal to an unrealistic aesthetic sensibility not only undermines her message, but goes against the supposed message of the magazine itself. Upsetting, yes, but more stupid than anything else. Magazines are products designed to sell themselves, and that cover was just bad business.
When questioned, however, the EIC made no apologies, no attempts to admit she/they were wrong, and went about business as usual. She made excuses about how all magazines do this, and generally behaved like she was a saint, and we were hypersensitive for reacting the way we did. Whatever your opinions are on this, the EIC made a bad business decision. She went against message, and as the face of the magazine, she has repeatedly come off as preachy and self-righteous, none of which are going to sell issues. Had she come out and said, "I'm sorry, we messed up", I might feel better about this and go back to reading occasional issues, but she hasn't, and won't.
The magazine isn't the best one out there, but I cannot put money into the pockets of a woman who has such little respect for her audience. #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
Frickin pick one bishes. #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
IMO, far from abandoning or breaking the rules in the face of evidence that they aren't really good sales predictors, most magazine editors seem to be clinging to them harder than ever, like they can't give up the ghost. Rather than getting more diverse (as one might expect if rules were being broken), the covers of most mainstream ladymags are getting more and more interchangeable: they all feature the same celebrities, the same lame headlines and teasers, the same poses and styling, the same extreme photoshopping that turns real women into cartoons. #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
1) technology has made photoshopping so extreme that people are unrecognizable in magazine cover shoots and editorials
but at the same time
2) technology (Twitter, gossip blogs) gives us nearly real-time access to the mundane minutiae of celebrities' private lives.
Why not a happy medium? Why can't celebrities look like themselves on magazine covers (albeit with professional photography and extremely flattering lighting), but then not be in so many snoopy snapshots of them going shopping in sweatpants, eating burgers, etc?
Is it that photoshopping makes them look so perfect, that people need candid unflattering pictures to balance this, and convince themselves "Hey celebrities are real people and look sloppy sometimes too!" ?
11/10/09
GET FUCKING TINY!
How to Photoshop yourself
into someone that
even your guy
won't recognize!
You're not skinny enough. #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
1. Slim down
2. Lose weight
1. Sexier sex (really?)
2. The sex pyramid
1. Confidence
2. Get the life you want
1. Health boosters
2. Superfoods
This is why I don't buy women's magazines anymore. It's all been done again and again.
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Plus, right next to it on the newsstand I can pick up Shape, which always features the same bikini-clad body thigh-high in water with a different celebrity's head pasted on, and what's not fun about that? #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
I'm not sure why I need a celebrity on my fitness magazines anyhow. I'd much rather buy Women's Health which features random fit women on the cover. #kellyclarksonself
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
That makes no sense.
Bring her into the studio, select a great, flattering outfit from the wardrobe department, do her hair and makeup to perfection and hire a great photographer to light her in the most flattering way and take 200 pictures, 1 of which, will be her personal best. That will be the beautiful image of how great Kelly Clarkson can look. That's aspirational. Making her taller and thinner is just fiction. No one would suggest that the cover of the magazine has to be an untouched picture of the bare faced, messy-haired, just got out of bed, Kelly Clarkson. She should look her best. That photo is simply not her best, it is someone else's.
08/14/09