Not Plain - But Pretty Inane - Jane
Regular readers of this column may occasionally feel dumbfounded by my astonishing insights into so many diverse topics.
(One kind reader once compared my mind to Einstein's. I'm sure she meant the famous science guy, although No. 2 son thinks she meant the dog from the "Back to the Future" movies.)
Today, however, I stand before you to be behind you to tell you something which I know nothing about. Frankly, I don't understand today's subject.
See, I recently exchanged some frequent flyer miles for several magazine subscriptions. From the sixty magazines offered, I chose titles that would stimulate my Einsteinian mind and result in a torrent of keen, fresh columns, preferably around 725 words in length, to enable me to keep hogging space in the papers that run my column.
One of my new magazines is a monthly called Jane. And let me tell ya, Jane is not the magazine I thought she was.
It turns out Jane is "a lifestyle publication for confident media-savvy 18-34 year old women." As a somewhat-beyond-34 father of five who has never been a confident media-savvy woman, the editors of Jane are definitely not talking to me. But here I am, enduring the icy looks from my mail carriers as they deliver Jane and its monthly helping of fashion, celebrities, sex, beauty, pop culture, sex, travel, lifestyle, sex, food, sex, and sex.
(Every month I try telling my postal persons that I MEANT to order Jane's Defence Weekly, an actual publication that covers geopolitical threats and global military activity. They ain't buyin' it.)
Anyway, in hopes of dumbfounding you with more astonishing insights, today I want to share what the folks at Jane think today's 18-34 year-old confident media-savvy woman ought to know. We'll examine the magazine's approach to its favorite topics (except for sex, beauty, pop culture, sex, travel, sex, food, sex and sex, which none of my editors will allow me space to discuss):
Fashion: Jane readers apparently earn fabulous sums of money. How else to explain the clothes that Jane features? Here's one of the cheaper ensembles worn by one of their glum-looking models: $560 shoes, $215 belt, another belt costing $205, $460 blouse, $315 skirt, all topped by a $470 top. No wonder the models look glum - the top appears to be made from about $4.70 worth of material.
Lifestyle: Jane readers apparently earn hardly any money whatsoever. Consider these tips - from real Jane readers - in an article about how to "live like an heiress" regardless of your income:
- a college student recommends spending all your money on clothes and then asking your parents for "more money for books."
- Scrounge for change around parking lot meters after the snow melts in the spring. ("Smart," praised Jane's editors. Really.)
- See Europe on the cheap by accompanying your rap artist boyfriend while he's on tour there.
Okay, so maybe living like an heiress is a lot easier than I thought, but I still found this advice depressing, because it's too dumb for me to make fun of. (Or is it just an elaborate joke on Jane's somewhat-beyond-34 father-of-five subscribers?)
Celebrities: Jane looooves celebrities, and drops their names constantly. Only celebrities appear on Jane's covers - always pictured in $470 tops - and scads of other famous persons get mentioned. The February cover named 15 - all of them apparently recognizable to Jane readers by first name only: Jen, Gavin, Jake, Mischa, Benedict. (Oops - not "Benedict"; that was from the cover of Cosmopolitan).
But the March cover only mentioned 10 slebs, April had only nine and May sunk to a mere eight! And three of them required first AND last names to be recognizable! If America's star power is this weak, how will Jane keep selling magazines to celebrity-addled readers?
These are but a few of my puzzlements about Jane. I sure would like to hear from Jane readers. I hope they'll tell me what they love about the magazine, and what a somewhat-beyond-34 father of five who has never been a confident media-savvy woman ought to learn from it.
Oh, and I hope to hear if they think I've got any shot at being mentioned on a Jane cover. Or better yet, being the cover model. I'll wear my most expensive top - it cost $4.70.
# # #
Jane also dispenses advice. But mine's better - ask for it at takefiveT5@yahoo.com
(One kind reader once compared my mind to Einstein's. I'm sure she meant the famous science guy, although No. 2 son thinks she meant the dog from the "Back to the Future" movies.)
Today, however, I stand before you to be behind you to tell you something which I know nothing about. Frankly, I don't understand today's subject.
See, I recently exchanged some frequent flyer miles for several magazine subscriptions. From the sixty magazines offered, I chose titles that would stimulate my Einsteinian mind and result in a torrent of keen, fresh columns, preferably around 725 words in length, to enable me to keep hogging space in the papers that run my column.
One of my new magazines is a monthly called Jane. And let me tell ya, Jane is not the magazine I thought she was.
It turns out Jane is "a lifestyle publication for confident media-savvy 18-34 year old women." As a somewhat-beyond-34 father of five who has never been a confident media-savvy woman, the editors of Jane are definitely not talking to me. But here I am, enduring the icy looks from my mail carriers as they deliver Jane and its monthly helping of fashion, celebrities, sex, beauty, pop culture, sex, travel, lifestyle, sex, food, sex, and sex.
(Every month I try telling my postal persons that I MEANT to order Jane's Defence Weekly, an actual publication that covers geopolitical threats and global military activity. They ain't buyin' it.)
Anyway, in hopes of dumbfounding you with more astonishing insights, today I want to share what the folks at Jane think today's 18-34 year-old confident media-savvy woman ought to know. We'll examine the magazine's approach to its favorite topics (except for sex, beauty, pop culture, sex, travel, sex, food, sex and sex, which none of my editors will allow me space to discuss):
Fashion: Jane readers apparently earn fabulous sums of money. How else to explain the clothes that Jane features? Here's one of the cheaper ensembles worn by one of their glum-looking models: $560 shoes, $215 belt, another belt costing $205, $460 blouse, $315 skirt, all topped by a $470 top. No wonder the models look glum - the top appears to be made from about $4.70 worth of material.
Lifestyle: Jane readers apparently earn hardly any money whatsoever. Consider these tips - from real Jane readers - in an article about how to "live like an heiress" regardless of your income:
- a college student recommends spending all your money on clothes and then asking your parents for "more money for books."
- Scrounge for change around parking lot meters after the snow melts in the spring. ("Smart," praised Jane's editors. Really.)
- See Europe on the cheap by accompanying your rap artist boyfriend while he's on tour there.
Okay, so maybe living like an heiress is a lot easier than I thought, but I still found this advice depressing, because it's too dumb for me to make fun of. (Or is it just an elaborate joke on Jane's somewhat-beyond-34 father-of-five subscribers?)
Celebrities: Jane looooves celebrities, and drops their names constantly. Only celebrities appear on Jane's covers - always pictured in $470 tops - and scads of other famous persons get mentioned. The February cover named 15 - all of them apparently recognizable to Jane readers by first name only: Jen, Gavin, Jake, Mischa, Benedict. (Oops - not "Benedict"; that was from the cover of Cosmopolitan).
But the March cover only mentioned 10 slebs, April had only nine and May sunk to a mere eight! And three of them required first AND last names to be recognizable! If America's star power is this weak, how will Jane keep selling magazines to celebrity-addled readers?
These are but a few of my puzzlements about Jane. I sure would like to hear from Jane readers. I hope they'll tell me what they love about the magazine, and what a somewhat-beyond-34 father of five who has never been a confident media-savvy woman ought to learn from it.
Oh, and I hope to hear if they think I've got any shot at being mentioned on a Jane cover. Or better yet, being the cover model. I'll wear my most expensive top - it cost $4.70.
# # #
Jane also dispenses advice. But mine's better - ask for it at takefiveT5@yahoo.com
posted by Don Stuart at 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home