In today's Times, Stephanie Clifford notes that the average More reader makes about $93,000 — $30,000 more than the average for Vogue, Allure or Bazaar. Yet More has hardly any luxury ads. Because More's for women over 40.
Clifford talked to editor in chief Lesley Jane Seymour about the attidtude of the mag:
The model for the magazine's sharp, irreverent tone, she said, is the men's magazine Esquire. But Esquire, though its average reader is about 45, hardly deals with age at all, and puts people ranging from age 23 (Megan Fox) to 79 (Clint Eastwood) on its covers. It's hard to imagine a men's magazine as concerned with growing older.
True, in a recent issue, More had an article on how to seem younger (wax your bikini line; text message; stop planning everything). Would Esquire run a similar story? Probably not, since age only "enhances" what men have to offer, in society's eyes. Women either become invisible or haggard old crones best ignored. But! As Clifford points out, "The More reader makes a lot more than the average reader of Esquire, at about $66,800, and GQ, at about $75,100."
But the men's mags, like Allure, Bazaar and Vogue, are filled with upscale designer ads. More's advertisers: "Crystal Light, Pringles, Coffee-Mate, Oscar Mayer, Bertolli, Tyson, Marie Callender's… wines under $10. Oh, and Friskies." Yes, if you are over 40, you are a processed-food eating crazy cat lady.
While it's true that the ad problem might also have something to do with More's publisher, Meredith, and the fact it's not used to getting luxury ads for any of its other titles (Ladies' Home Journal; Family Circle); the fact remains that intelligent, wealthy over-40 women are being overlooked. Or are they also buying Vogue on the side?