STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Patricia · BCBG

Lucky Magazine

lynnie · Chanel

My bosses were in it and said the same thing. They were given a few dresses that they had supposedly "chosen" and had to comment on what made them special. I *think* they used their quotes, but they had no say in what the pieces were. Sigh.

subwolley · Kate Spade

All I have to say is Lucky sucks!

I love how the editors think that affordable is $500 or so. Really? I don't know about anyone else, but affordable to me is under $100, maybe even under $50. Splurging for me is $100+

The magazine rarely showcases anything affordable or obtainable by my standards, and I just get pissed when I see something I love and it's like $1,000. Why must they torture me? I usually search the web or use web blogs to find good affordable goodies.

Kelly · Hermes

oh, geez. Reason #23471 Lucky makes me mad

fairywings · Dooney & Bourke

I really don't think it's a big deal actually. I mean, if a model from any other magazine wears couture or something worth a fortune, nobody cares. That's "fashion." But if a magazine tries to be a little more "down to earth" by not using celebrities or high paid models but their own friends and editors, all of a sudden it's fraud! I like the Lucky concept that they are trying to dress normal working women with both mid prices items and splurges. If the magazine decides to dress their "model/editor" in more trendy clothes and jewlery then they are used to, they need to understand that it is a magazine based on fashion...not their personal tastes.

Kelly · Hermes

Well I think the difference is that they are lying about where these outfits came from. They don't say "we chose this outfit, and doesn't it look good on her?" (which would be fine_. They are trying to pass these outfits off as something the woman personally picked out and are falsely quoting them.

lynnie · Chanel

Yes- I agree. Especially since these are real people representing themselves, not models.

I don't mind what they feature though. I wish there was a bit more of a range but I think it is meant for the person that will splurge on a piece or two. Nice fabrics/detailing costs money and I like the idea that it is aspirational but *less* unattainable. There are a LOT more people willing to spend $300 on a top than $1000- even though it's all crazy.

kenzie · Chanel

ttara123 wrote:

Well I think the difference is that they are lying about where these outfits came from. They don't say "we chose this outfit, and doesn't it look good on her?" (which would be fine_. They are trying to pass these outfits off as something the woman personally picked out and are falsely quoting them.

Exactly. And in journalism, falsifying quotes is a cardinal sin. I always wondered about those quotes and if they were real. Now I know.

theotherjess · Chanel

kenzie wrote:

ttara123 wrote:

Well I think the difference is that they are lying about where these outfits came from. They don't say "we chose this outfit, and doesn't it look good on her?" (which would be fine_. They are trying to pass these outfits off as something the woman personally picked out and are falsely quoting them.

Exactly. And in journalism, falsifying quotes is a cardinal sin. I always wondered about those quotes and if they were real. Now I know.

ITA. I think it's wrong to attribute a quote to someone if they never said it.

Hermione · Kate Spade

I remember that I used to love Lucky when it first came out because they offered choices that were TRULY affordable (like under $100) - and remember how their whole thing used to be that they wouldn't have celebrities on the cover?

For some reason I think I remember reading somewhere that someone called the editor out on how they've abandoned their original concept of a magazine about shopping that the average woman could relate to, realistically. I remember being turned off by her answer, it was something pretty snobby if I recall - like when the owner of A&F said they wanted to sell clothes to the popular beautiful kids, and they didn't want the ugly fat ones wearing their brand name - it gave me a feeling like that.

Lately everything is so completely unattainable (see $5432 bracelet) in that mag that I don't ever pick it up. I appreciate looking at high fashion for style and inspiration but there are plenty of other magazines that do that well (Vogue, W, etc) The whole point of Lucky was that is was about real shopping, and who is it for now? Paris Hilton?

blink · Coach

Thanks for posting this. Gosh, that's pathetic.

Whenever I have read those "my foolproof outfit" or other "real" women's favorite things, I always feel like it's just my own sour grapes that I assure myself they are either in credit card debt or possibly have a trust fund or a generous SO. Now I feel a little silly, like I should have known it's made up. How fraudulent!

All I can think is, when are real women going to rebel against this BS? I think we already are, I can't believe how many bargain hunting fashion blogs there are to read, I pay much more attention to them than I do to Lucky Mag anymore.

I love my signature quote ... I especially love all those hard working and well-dressed bloggers for providing the proof. They probably work harder for our benefit than Lucky editors do.

"Go either very cheap or very expensive. It's the middle ground that is fashion nowhere." ~ Karl Lagerfeld

-- Edited by blink at 01:05, 2008-08-09

wicked · Coach

These are from their "Cute Outfit of the Day" section.

Luckys idea of cute and fashionable is f-ing hideous imo. Also, I don't think they show enough diversity with their models and the tone of their copy sounds so mindless and repeatitive.

Kelly · Hermes

Yea, I think Lucky has one idea of fashionable, and it's a lot of layering and oddly fitting clothing. I "understand" the look, but it's not mine, so a lot of the stuff they say is a bit useless. And I think a lot (but not all) of their "Cute Outfit of the Day" selections would be serious contenders for What Not to Wear

MissMee · Kate Spade

I would appreciate their picks more if they did more "looks for less" or something. I expect to see a $5000 skirt in Vogue or Elle, but Lucky? Not so much. Now, I'd love to see that $5000 skirt from Vogue copied from a regular store or several versions of that skirt at various price points. Love it when they (or some magazine) does the "platinum, gold, atm" outfits. That's way more useful.

ITA about their weird fashion sense. Everything is like something an Olsen twin would wear- shapeless and layered, a bit overpriced, and oddly mismatched. Even when they do the Fashion on the Streets articles, the racks are always loaded with expensive pieces and the girls usually just pile on a bunch of stuff together. Do they *really* pick out that stuff to go together, or does someone hand it to them and ask for a sound bite? Do they have a girl off the street who picks out something more normal, like just the jeans, button-down, boots, and accessories but then doesn't feature her because her chosen outfit is too normal? I'm guessing, now, that this probably happens.

Too bad, too, because I think Lucky had the great potential to be a "real" woman's magazine.

Suasoria · Chanel

Oh god, the "COOTD" outfits are hideous. I'm totally surprised when I see one that doesn't make me want to gag.

There was a little PR problem last year when a VP for Lucky, Sandy Golinkin, said "If you don't have a lot of money, you won't be happy reading this magazine." Their reader surveys say the average household income of readers is $84,400 (household, not individual) - which depending on where one lives, doesn't seem like it would leave a lot left over for $500 shoes, let alone a $5000 bracelet.

MissMee · Kate Spade

Have you ever noticed, like I have, that they don't have a Letters to the Editor section? Wonder why that is????