UK gadget magazines drops swim suit models when it realizes it has women customers.

Not sure what’s most shocking about this piece of news: that a tech gadget magazine thought it was appropriate to boost its sales by having half-naked women on the cover? Or that the magazine didn’t realize it had a substantial female readership?

No longer : Stuff magazine discovered market research and decided to drop the swim suit models from its covers, when it noticed that sales went up by 10% whenever they didn’t feature half-naked women.

 

Image

6 thoughts on “UK gadget magazines drops swim suit models when it realizes it has women customers.

  1. If I saw this while browsing a magazine stand, I’m afraid I would think that the “stuff” they were alluding to was very different in kind than their apparently true focus. Or, I might think that the kind of gadget they are talking about is of a very narrow kind and interest. If I were naive, I might think that if I used the gadgets that I might expect to learn about in this magazine, I would miraculously lose 70 pounds and be able to wear the featured attire without too much of a second thought. Too “good” to be true! LOL! No wonder their sales go down!

  2. I don’t assume it, but It’s fairly clear that the people responsible for the magazine covers did!

  3. I have seen this magazine at airport newsstands and the like and had assumed it was a “lad mag” like Maxim or something. I’m not exactly sure what a “gadget magazine” is (are “gadgets” enough of a real kind to devote a magazine to them? That seems surprising to me, but I guess I don’t know) I’m not sure I’d pick it up even with a different cover, but it’s interesting to know that they were at least sometimes giving a wrong impression.

  4. I’m curious (to all feminists):

    Suppose that the magazine had found that putting half-naked women on the cover *boosted* sales by 10%. I assume a lot of feminists would still find it objectionable that they put half naked women on the cover just to boost sales. Fair enough, but I wonder what else they would say besides just finding it objectionable:

    Would you say that it ought to be illegal for a magazine to put a half-naked woman on its cover?

    Would you say that it ought to be legal, but the magazine ought not to do it anyways for moral reasons?

    Would you say that it ought to be legal, and we can’t fault the magazine for doing it, but we just need to strive to move towards a world where putting half-naked women on a magazine cover doesn’t boost sales, in fact maybe it would even decrease sales because people would find it morally repugnant to objectify women in that manner?

    Or maybe none of these three options describes your views?

    Apologies if I’ve made any colossal errors in framing these questions or if I don’t have the correct set of background beliefs… I don’t know much about feminism.

Comments are closed.