So I stole this from Blair's weekly blog site, so forgive me if you already posted about this, Blair. However, I was really struck by these covers. I had actually already seen the simpler design where you don't see Gwyneth Paltrow's face. So when I first saw this, I thought they were comparing it to an older cover design from a different issue or an earlier version of the cover. But then, when I read that they were both released for the same issue I was really intrigued. Ok, so there aren't any sell lines on the one they sent to subscribers, but it is SOOO good I can't believe they decided to redesign for the stands. I would have LOVED to have been in the room for that conversation. I also have to wonder if it had to do with the sexy leg Paltrow is rocking, but when Cosmo puts SEX sell lines on every cover I just can't imagine that Paltrow showing leg was really the concern. Anyway, I wish I was a regular subscriber, because I think the cover for the stands is much more cookie cutter. The other one is incredibly inspiring and artistic. LOVE.
I am completely with you. I love the simple cover. There is something so striking about it. Although there aren't any sell lines, the design is strong enough that I am intrigued to open up the magazine and see what else they've got. The second cover is great too because it still achieves that clean sense of simplicity featured in the first cover while giving readers more tangible information about the month's stories.
ReplyDeleteUntil you posted this, I had only seen the simple cover. I kind of hate the other one, way too commercially designed for my taste? I don't know if that makes sense, but it does to me. I love the other cover, and am very sad that this one didn't hit the newsstands. It definitely makes me want to open up the magazine to see what's inside. Not showing Paltrow's face is a bold move, and very intriguing, something I'd like to see more of in the future.
ReplyDeleteFor my post this week, I wrote about the redesign of Glamour, and they did something similar with creating two sort-of different cover. There was one for subscribers that had the bare minimum of sell lines (mostly large words, such as SEX and GUYS) and one with the more traditional sell lines that encompass the whole sides of the cover.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know we like the more asethically pleasing and simple cover, I understand why HB might not want that on the news stands. As designers we are often intrigued by the mystery, but shoppers in the grocery line what to see hard and fast what they are getting if they were to purchase those magazine. Sell lines are very influential in my opinion.
Also, I think not showing the cover model's face is kind of a one-trick pony. I don't think they would see success if they did it over and over.
I am interested in what you all think about the new cover of Glamour. They even changed the masthead. So, head on over to http://andrea-hall.blogspot.com/ when you have a minute.
I love when magazines do multiple covers, yet I hate it because it makes me want both versions! All I can see on the first cover is Gwyneth's body, or lack there of haha. Goodness. It's everything I love about fashion magazines. Simple, chic and doesn't need anything else.
ReplyDelete