Australian marie claire is one of two home-grown glossies that I religiously purchase each month. I trust it – I trust the content to be intelligent and engaging, I trust that the 101 ideas inspire me to go through my wardrobe and hunt for new outfit ideas and I trust the lifestyle features to make me long for a holiday to far far away exotic locations.

So, as far as I’m concerned, they can slap on any ol’ cover and I’ll still fork out the $8.20 – I’m loyal that way. I, however, am not necessarily the typical magazine consumer. Thus, it worries me that marie claire didn’t seem to try so hard with the cover of their March issue which hit newstands today.

Erica from Girl with a Satchel (remember last week’s interview?) chalks it up to playing it safe in light of last month’s controversy -

After all the huffing and puffing that followed the release of her February Jennifer Hawkins cover, marie claire editor Jackie Frank is playing it relatively safe for March, with Angelina Jolie looking let’s-get-down-to-business-like in her black blazer and slicked back hair. - New Aussie Glossies, February 3 2010

I suppose this makes sense. However, when I walked up eagerly to Magnation today, I have to admit that my initial thoughts weren’t so forgiving. Something is simply…off about the cover and I’ve been trying to nail down exactly why. After consulting one of my new books, I’ve come up with two theories.

Theory #1: The cover is dull

Designing…for Magazines by Jan V. White (1976, R.R Bowker Company, NY) proclaims that -

If the cover is ‘dull’ – if it fails to sell the fascination o the subject, and, more importantly, the significance of that fascination to the reader – if it doesn’t persuade him of his need to have the knowledge for fun and profit, then the chances are the cover as failed: the prospective buyer won’t buy, the prospective reader won’t read the magazine” – p. 2

With this in mind, I don’t think marie claire is going to be selling too many copies of this ol’ mag. The picture, of course, cannot be blamed entirely but the harshness of the black suited Angelina against a grey background is only amplified by the fluro coverlines, screaming – “HEY HERE’S SOME COLOUR! BUY ME! I’M PRETTY!”. The text is far too gaudy for such a dull image that whilst its attempts are noble, they’re nonetheless unsuccessful.

Theory #2: Angelina the alien – HELLO! airbrush anyone?

I think it’s depressing that the ‘stand’ taken by the magazine last month was so poorly received. However, now it seems more of a token gesture than ever. Ange, like J. Hawkins, is stunning enough without needing the ten times over with the airbrush. Sadly, it seems marie claire went nutso trying to prove their worth. The end result this month is a female figure which looks lifeless, muted and lacking in depth.  Sigh.

If it weren’t for all the cultural traits we immediately associate with Angelina – strength, family, Brad Pitt, etc – then this cover would be even more of an enormous dud.

I think it’s a great shame too as the content delivered inside is the same high standard that I expect from the magazine, albeit there’s a lot of ads this time, but some of the pages are pretty enough for me to cut out and frame to hang on my wall.

So, I suppose this is more of a plea – a plea to make sure that you don’t immediately dismiss this issue because of the hopeless cover, there’s some good stuff buried in there, I swear. It’s just a shame it’s buried underneath all this confusion.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!