Who We Are

Advertisement

The Tribal Mind: Faces that sell and repel

For daily updates on how Australians entertain themselves, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

by David Dale
Lets call it The Paltrow Paradox. Gwyneth Paltrow is a smart, attractive, accomplished woman. At the same time Gwyneth Paltrow is regarded by US publishers as a giant turnoff for readers. You might say she is America's Nicole Kidman, who is alleged to provoke the same reaction in her compatriots.

gwyneth.jpg Paltrow's image crisis was revealed last month when Entertainment Weekly magazine published a cover story on the stars of the forthcoming sequel to Iron Man. It displayed Robert Downey Jr, Scarlett Johansson and Mickey Rourke, but not even a glimpse of Paltrow, who plays Iron Man's assistant Pepper Potts. The New York Post asked Entertainment Weekly why she was absent, and reported that "rightly or wrongly, the editors feel any cover with Paltrow is newsstand suicide." Apparently Americans, particularly female Americans, find her annoying.

Women's Wear Daily followed up this insight by listing who was on the cover of the worst-selling issues of the main glossies over the past year. The faces that sank a thousand ships were: Rachel Weisz (Vogue, which revealed that Paltrow had been on its second-worst seller), Nicole Kidman (Glamour), Jessica Simpson (Cosmopolitan), Katherine Heigl (Vanity Fair), Carrie Underwood (Elle), Hilary Swank (W), Anne Hathaway (InStyle), Drew Barrymore (Harper's Bazaar) and Jennifer Connolly (Marie Claire).

(By contrast, America's top selling cover faces included Keira Knightley, Angelina Jolie, Eva Longoria, Scarlett Johansson, Victoria Beckham and "the women of Sex and the City".)

The editors of Australia's magazines are notoriously reluctant to reveal their worst selling issues, so we are left to speculate that over the past 12 months, Paltrow, Heigl and Kidman must have appeared often on New Idea, Woman's Day and NW.

th_sitjesskatie.jpg Those were the big losers among the weeklies in sales figures released this week by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Since mid 2008, New Idea has lost 26,000 buyers, Woman's Day has lost 23,000, and NW has lost 15,000.

Or is poor choice of cover images too shallow an explanation for the collapse of Australia's glossies and gossipies? Instead we might need to raise the C word as the possible problem here - as in Credibility. In March, New Idea ran a cover which purported to show Bec Hewitt (former soap star and current tennis wife) with the "new man in her life". New Idea has since admitted that it made a huge mistake, because the man in the picture was actually Hewitt's brother. The magazine seems to have taken the word of a paparazzo.

New Idea is not alone among weeklies in taking such a casual approach to fact-checking, and it would be nice to interpret the figures as meaning readers are punishing their former favourites for constantly deceiving them. But that might be wishful thinking -- in the same year that New Idea lost its 26,000 fans, another weekly called Famous gained 13,000 buyers (bringing it to 80,000 a week) and a new gossipy called Grazia entered the market, selling 66,000 a week. So it seems many Australians have not been able to give up their weekly wallow in scandal.

Lets look more closely at the changes in Australia's reading habits over the 12 months to June 30 ...

Australia's favourite magazines:
1 Women's Weekly 491,500 a month
2 Woman's Day 408,000 a week
3 Better Homes and Gardens 370,000 a month
4 New Idea 325,000 a week
5 Readers Digest 325,000 a month
6 That's Life! 302,000 a week
7 Super Food Ideas 271,000 a month
8 Take 5 246,000 a week
9 TV Week 224,000 a week
10 Cosmopolitan 166,000 a month
11 Australian Geographic 141,000 a month
12 NW 140,000 a week

The biggest losers: Cleo, NW, New Idea, Super Food Ideas, Good Taste, Alpha.

The biggest improvers: Famous, Better Homes and Gardens, Dolly, Shop Till You Drop, Notebook, Time Australia.

Can you discern a pattern? Go to Comments to offer your theory on what it means, and to tell us whose face would make you buy or avoid a magazine

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

Gwyneth Paltrow's a no go but Mickey Rourke is fine???

  • by darren on August 14, 2009 at 02:30 PM

I don't know at least half the famous faces you mention on magazine covers -- and many of them I cannot tell apart without a caption. Hardly gossip-mag fodder, but here's a couple: Don Bourke is a definite no-go in any medium. I would be interested to see if A Current Affair's Friday ratings have been adversely affected by his presence.
Similar response to Dick Smith, who pops up repeatedly on radio, and always elicits a rapid move towards the off switch.
I think That's Life has a great policy of generic-looking ordinary people on the front cover. They're not supermodels, they are anonymous, but there's nothing wrong with their looks -- although some are obviously photoshopped like the old China Pictorial magazines issued during Chairman Mao's time.
I am usually turned off by magazines featuring Angelina, as I don't find her attractive (unlike 99% of the world, apparently), and several others (names unknown) who have a similar look that was inspired by the revamped Betty Crocker symbol. They are irrelevant to Australia.
Cute babies on covers are also uninteresting and frequently not that cute -- likewise canines, but I don't mind a cat or two.
However, I am a sucker for Britney Spears on covers, as the stories inside are usually sensational, speculative, totally unbelievable, yet probably true.

  • by Professor Rosseforp on August 15, 2009 at 07:21 AM

Don't just compare the sales figures to a year ago - this a long trend with more interesting figures the further back you go. Go back to the early 1990s and you'll find the golden trio of Women's Weekly, Woman's Day and New Idea were all selling around the ONE MILLION mark each per edition. They've more than halved their circulations in 16 years, and New Idea has dropped by two-thirds. TV Week was about 500,000 back then so it's halved too, but it has an excuse - the Sunday Newspapers launched their free colour TV magazines including TV guides at the start of the 1990s and eliminated a big chunk of the reason to buy TV Week.

  • by Deborah S on August 15, 2009 at 01:17 PM

You know what? I don't really care what face is on a magazine cover. I do not buy a magazine simply because so so-called 'celebrity' has their photo-shopped, airbrushed, retouched mug on the cover. I buy it because I want to read something inside. And that 'something' will not be made-up gossip about some 'celebrity's' love life and/or weight gain.

If I was influenced by cover faces I'd never buy my favourite Womens Weekly, because their cover shots are so and predictable. If it's December it's Bindi Irwin and/or 'brave little Sophie'. If it's February it must be Oprah. Princess Mary and Nicole Kidman seem to be on contracts to appear at least twice a year each, and tired old has-beens like Liz Hayes and Olivia Newton John have to show up every 12 months or so. If I was influenced in my buying choice by the cover I'd end up buying the Weekly maybe once every three years.

  • by meg on August 15, 2009 at 01:21 PM

I have been influenced twice to buy a magazine because of who was on the cover. (well almost) I rarely buy magazines so I can clearly remember. I bought a women's magazine because of Juliette Binoche was on the cover and I liked the makeup (we have similiar colouring and eyes) so I bought it so I could show the makeup artist who was going to do my makeup for a wedding (not mine). The second time was Jessica Simpson, there was something in the outfit she was wearing that I really liked so I bought it more for that than the cover person. I personally feel that Gwyneth or Nicole Kidman make boring cover girls, especially Nicole, she is so expressionless and wane, & so airbrushed (but aren't they all).
Aren't all women's magazines on life support. There seems to be a converse or is it inverse relationship, the higher the price point of the magazine, the less meaningful content of the magazine and the higher the volume of ads. The frequency of the magazine, the less newsworthy the content as the weeklies are madly competing with the internet and they don't have time to dwell on in depth stories.
Finally it has almost become farcical with some of the magazines. On a Monday, you go to the newsagent and one magazine will have Brad & Angelina definitely breaking up, another will have them planning to get married, a third magazine will have them not getting married nor breaking up but arguing that they not have any more children and then a fourth one will have the couple not marrying, not breaking up but arguing that they will have more children. It seems to be the lucky dip option, plan to print a story and fingers crossed by print run time, the answer may actually be the right one, if not, blame the unidentified "close" but anonymous source... If the lucky dip option mentions a scandal which was indeed scandalous by not actually being scandalous but fictional factless, say "oops"and print a retraction. If the party sues, say "oops" and pay but who cares as you then get double milage out the publicity for the story, plus the story on the legal action which allows you to get even more milage from it. The only mags that seem to be doing well are ones based on cooking

  • by kate on August 15, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Arent all magazines on life support? and unless there's a scandal attached to a celebrity (ie, Jolie, Aniston)... that's the only time they would become top selling cover girls. I know Kidman (as an endorser) was a big success for Chanel so I dont think anybody can just say she cant sell anything.

  • by cale on August 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Teenage girls are mad about Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart from Twilight and it seems the magazines have worked this out. Their faces seem to attract sales at the moment. They've appeared on the cover of every magazine a number of times in the last few weeks. One must have had massive success and word must have spread.
They even appeared on the cover of TV Week three weeks ago and they have nothing to do with TV. TV week almost never features anyone but Aussie TV stars on the cover. Maybe they just needed a circulation boost.

  • by J Bar on August 21, 2009 at 09:58 AM

At a glance your numbers are a little askew.
e.g. WW @ no.1 vs 491,000 a month is a hell of lot less numbered sales than WD @ no.2 vs 408.000 a WEEK.

Tribal Mind replies: The chart is ranked on average sales per issue, whether that is monthly, weekly, or quarterly.

  • by UnclePhil on August 22, 2009 at 08:31 AM

POST A COMMENT

Security code image.