January 16, 2014
Would You Buy a Magazine if the Cover Wasn't Sexy?
It’s nothing new that sex sells. But just how well does it sell? Is it possible to sell without it? Sex has been a valuable commodity since it became for sale. Prostitution’s often referred to as the world’s oldest profession. It’s no wonder really since the male brain is wired to be visually oriented.
But what about a magazine? What about all those provocative poses on the front of Cosmopolitain, GQ, and the like? They catch the eye. They catch the eye just like the colors and the font and the curiosity striking article titles. It's obvious then why sexually charged photos are used for the cover of a magazine that really wants to sell well.
It has gotten to the point though, that to escape the sexualization you've got to content yourself with cooking magazines or probably home decor just to be safe. It becomes overwhelming and overdone. There's nothing special or new or different about it. It's just another celebrity in little clothing striking a provocative pose.
So complain we do. But would you buy the same magazine without a sexy cover? Would you be interested in the subject matter if the interviewee wasn't smoldering seductively at you? Perhaps the same applies to meeting someone new, if they are smiling and making eye contact it means they're interested or at least interesting.
We buy magazines because we are either interested in the topic or the person on the cover. We understand that sexually charged images are used by publishers to draw the eye and keep it there. Its a part of the industry and its a part of the industry that will probably never change. But would you look? Would you still be interested if the person on the front wasn't acting like she was taking her clothes off or if he wasn't partially nude?
But what about a magazine? What about all those provocative poses on the front of Cosmopolitain, GQ, and the like? They catch the eye. They catch the eye just like the colors and the font and the curiosity striking article titles. It's obvious then why sexually charged photos are used for the cover of a magazine that really wants to sell well.
It has gotten to the point though, that to escape the sexualization you've got to content yourself with cooking magazines or probably home decor just to be safe. It becomes overwhelming and overdone. There's nothing special or new or different about it. It's just another celebrity in little clothing striking a provocative pose.
So complain we do. But would you buy the same magazine without a sexy cover? Would you be interested in the subject matter if the interviewee wasn't smoldering seductively at you? Perhaps the same applies to meeting someone new, if they are smiling and making eye contact it means they're interested or at least interesting.
We buy magazines because we are either interested in the topic or the person on the cover. We understand that sexually charged images are used by publishers to draw the eye and keep it there. Its a part of the industry and its a part of the industry that will probably never change. But would you look? Would you still be interested if the person on the front wasn't acting like she was taking her clothes off or if he wasn't partially nude?