| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
I went to FHM.com to see if the full name wd be there somewhere. I cdn't find it. The first image that loaded was a lingerie shot -- starting w/the hughest, phoniest looking breasts I've ever seen. Who reads this stuff? What's the difference btwn FHM, Gear & Stuff? Why do men need 3 nearly identical magazines covering the same mindless material? Why not just read Playboy? At least you get to actually see the women naked. I keep seeing the covers of these magazines on newstands/& they seem so 80's retro. All they offer is pictures of barely-clad women/most of them surgically-enhanced & airbrushed to the nth degree. A zillion ad pages. And articles abt expensive toys. And reviews of dick flicks. It's like a bad Gordon Gekko wetdream flashback. Playboy's been doing that stuff better & longer than any of these new magazines. And the still do some of the best print interviews I've come across. If you just want a tease/you can get the Victoria's Secret catalog sent to you every other damn week -- for free! So who needs FHM? Are most of the under-30 men out there reading these new mags? Is this what the 21st century male periodical reader is buying? becuz I hear FHM has huge numbers. Or is it really geared towards the 16-22 yr. olds? I say no becuz the gadgets & clothes are too pricey for most kids to afford. Makes me glad I'm not raising an adolescent in these times... |
|
|
RC we could pose the same question for chick mags? Even more so..... Glamour, Cosmo, marie clair, Redbook etc. Its just mindless reading. you'd be surprised that the readership of those male magazines, like maxim, fhm and stuff (the publishers of maxim publish stuff fyi) consists almost as much of women as it does men. You can't judge anyone by looking at those publications. Come on. Otherwise we could judge you by the shallow pointless same 5 god damn sex surveys and lipstick reviews published in every other issue of Cosmo and Glamour |
Guess where it resides. By the toilet. It never leaves. Thats the best place for it. |
redlorry yellowlorry |
|
|
|
|
but who cares. its funny like the "Football in Groin" clips are funny.... |
|
i enjoyed it. |
I feel like this today. |
it wasn't a cartoon. though i think the head explosion was faked. |
you aren't staying up late with a boy are you? |
I got bored with Playboy and Penthouse long ago. I found them to expensive for to little. For the money spent on one of their monthly issues I preferred their special additions. Particulary the Comics. |
(Isn't Brak cute?) |
Juggs, Barel Legal, OUI, Black Inches, Leg Show? |
However, I currently prefer, when I'm in the mood, some of the smaller format publications. Not many pictures. But, the "aritcles" are fun to read. And, thats all I'll say on the subject. |
|
|
Patrick: The only magazines I subscribe to are Vanity Fair/The Atlantic Monthly/Movieline/& Prevention. And I pick up the occasional copy of Variety or In Style. That's it. I subscribed to Vogue from abt age 13 to 19 or 20. Later/I switched to Elle becuz they featured more Black models. But I outgrew fashion mags by the time I finished college. (I never liked Cosmo.) And I never subscribed to both Vogue & Elle at the same time -- that wd be redundant. Which is precisely my point. Forget Maxim/FHM/Gear/Stuff -- why not just get Playboy? They've been doing that stuff better for far longer. And you get to see the naughty bits. I suspect that Maxim/FHM/Gear/Stuff etc. are published as primers for Playboy/Penthouse/Oui. Teenage boys can have the new crop of mags around the house w/out getting fussed at by their mothers becuz the girls aren't completely nude. By the time they turn 18/the poor schnooks are completely indoctrinated. They have no idea what real breasts look like. They think feminine beauty equals virtual anorexia (or real anorexia/in the case of many of those models & actresses)/that a girl is supposed to have a body like a 12-yr-old boy - no hips/no ass/but big jugs. (Which almost never happens in nature/becuz Nature Loves Symmetry & Proportion.) They're convinced that having the right haircut-cologne-suit-shoes-watch-car will get them a girl like the ones in the magazines. And of course/they wdn't dare settle for anything 'less' becuz they've been brainwashed into believeing that they are Hot Shit becuz they have all the 'right' accessories. Then they turn 18 & the credit cards start coming in the mail. And they're happily on their way to becomeing good little mindless consumers & making their female peers want to poke them in the eye w/a fork becuz they have No Clue how to relate to a real girl in the real world. If I had kids/I wd NOT let my teenagers read that crap. |
this is ridiculous. its just a magazine. you're reading WAYYYY too much into this, far more than your average 15 year old boy is. Whatever magazines you subscribe too, realize that there are similar publications for women. And that was your original question....why have 3 of these similar magazines for men....my point is, you can't ask that question without considering the fluff mags out there for women too. All they are R.C. is advertising vehicles. Period. Elle, Glamour, Cosmo.....these are not fashion magazines anymore than Maxim or FHM are fashion magazines. They may have a fashion column, but they arent fashion magazines. Thats a euphamism. not letting your kid look at it would just have the converse impression you desire. Why not get Playboy? wait...and you're bitching about fake breasteseses and psuedo femininity and you say why not look at Playboy? Im confused. Playboy doesnt interest me. Im not picking up these magazines to get titillated and I dont think most are. With such raunchy porn readilty available on the net, if we want to be titillated, we have better sources. Also, you have to take into consideration, you can't just take a Playboy on the subway to read. You can't read Playboy at work in the lunchroom on your break. There is a big red line that divides how publications are sold on the newsstand. Maxim steps right up to that line and flirts with the otherside. My professional opinion is, they should cross it, its time. The same guy who publishes Gear, publishes Penthouse. Michael Gucciani.....anyway, he is wise to have two such magazines because they are two very distinct readers. One wants to whack off, the other wants something to read on the way to work. Simply put. They put hot chicks on the cover to sell the damn thing, throw a few pictorial spreads in , put a stupid sex column in, a gadgets column, a couple of cool crime/caper stories, an interview of someone we "care" about, say, like, Shaq or some hot gal from Star Trek and sell the fuck out of some advertising. I don't BUY Maxim, never would, it just keeps coming, and is great pot reading. Truly. The only mags we subscribe to are W , Bazaar, Wallpaper, Aperture, Food and Wine and the tenacious Maxim. |
|
It used to cost only seventy five cents an issue. Admittedly that was a long time ago. But, Seventy five cents at the time made it a decent buy for a lifestyle/entertainment/mens magazine. What does it cost today? Four or Five U.S. Dollars an issue. That is outragious. The cost of any magazine today is rediculously high. Newspapers and magazines used to make their money soley from advertising. The news stand price was to help offset the cost of printing. It can't possibly cost four or five dollars a peice to print and transport the millions of copies of any of these massmarket publications. So why do they cost so much? |
it is VERY costly to distribute to a newsstand. There are a few industry standards at play here: 1) all unsold copies are returnable for credit 2) retailers get up to 45% off the cover price, while distributors get up to 55% off, so the publisher only takes in less than half the newsstand price. 3)shipping to the newsstands is generally paid for by the publisher. 4)Its a rarity a magazine completely sells out on the newsstand. The ideal sell through is anywhere from 35% to 60% of the amount put out initially. For our magazines, we seek to have a sell through of at least 37%, after that we are loosing money. 5) There often is a ratio of copies put to the copies sold, but if you have a weak issue, this can fuck it all up. Its a constant juggling act. 6)Traditional newsstands have virtually disapeared. More magazines are being sold in major book, drug, grocery, convenient store chains. These chains charge mega bucks and often demand a certain sales in order to carry your title. They charge display fees, major chains, like Borders and Barnes and Noble charge re-ship fees per lb of magazines. This covers the cost to get the mag out to all the stores. 7) Wholesaler consolidation, and in general retailer demands have = more costs put back to publishers. Its a constant tug of war between publishers and wholesalers/distributors/chains. As a publisher, we are aware that newsstand cost can effect sales, as you clearly indicate, so any cover price increases are measured. We recently discovered we could be bringing in an extra 10 grand by simply making our cover prices $X.95 to $X.99. That extra 4 cents will add up. The Canadians have been hit particularly hard with cover prices because of a horrible exchange rate. So they feel more than we do. But trust me, it can cost millions to have your mag on the newsstand. We often put copies out, at a loss, to obtain the coverage that makes advertisers happy. Also in the last year, advertiser dollars are drying up. Its much much much much more complex than just printing and shipping. |
I still think they are way to expensive today. But, at least I can now understand some of the reasons behind it. |
SOW/lemme call V.F. on the carpet. The Dec. issue was chock-full -- 336 pgs./inc. a great piece on Peter Bergen's 1997 interview w/Bin Laden (back when the American press didn't know Osama from the Dali Lama)/a story by a woman on the front lines in Afghanistan/a piece on the Mossad & how they track down & kill terriorists like they're ordering take-out. Plus Brad Pitt on the cover/ w/his shirt open. If I can't have Denzel on the cover (& it looks like I can't -- it's been almost 2 years since VF had someone Black on their cover)/Brad is the next best thang. But I'm still toting that issue around becuz there were at least 2 really interesting articles I haven't had time to finish. And that's after ripping out at least 50 ad pages just so the thing wd fit in my bag. (I'm a big ad ripper. I'd be willing ot pay pay a dollar more per issue just to get them to leave out the perfume ads & the foldouts.) Granted/the Dec.issue is always overstuffed w/ad pages. But the Jan issue (a mere 162 pgs.) w/a shirtless (& tacky) Tom Cruise on the cover wasn't shit! One halfway-interesting piece on the exiled king of Afghanistan/& the rest was just the usual fodder. Even Dominick Dunne's monthly piece was flaccid (and I love his column). Tom Cruise hasn't given an interesting/non-prefab interview EVER. He's only on the cover to promote VANILLA SKY/so I don't know why they even bother sitting down w/him anymore. Yes/I know he's Tom Cruise - but if he has nothing of interest to say abt anything/why interview him? (Why not have Will Smith on the cover & have him sit down & interview Ali for VF so they can both talk abt the new Ali biopic? He-llo?) The Hollywood Reporter gave VANILLA SKY a scathing review/so I can't wait to see what kind of box office it does. My point is that I don't get to send the Jan. issue back for credit beucz it was lackuster. And I've already paid for a year upfront. So puleeze don't tell me that w/all thse glossy ad pages these publications aren't making big $$. They wdn't still be in business if they weren't As for the Playboy vs. the others thing -- my point is if you want T&A dressed up w/a few articles/plus all the fancy gadgets/buy Playboy & at least get the interviws too. Rather than payingfor second-rate teasers like Maxim & FHM. And if you want something unobtrusive to read on the subway or at the office/there are always newspapers. |
gimme a break R.C. im on the virge of declaring you a crackpot. You paid upfront, with a discount to have the damn thing delivered to your home mind you. Hell NO you don't get credit. Yes we certainly do make more from subscriptions. But publishers don't make the "mega bucks" like you might think. We are a business like any other, yes we make a profit, but its not as extravagent as you think. Its a huge operation to publish a magazine. Our company publish's two major international gay magazines, Out and Advocate, we have a book publishign subsidiary that puts out about 40-50 books a year, we have the distribution arm of the company which wholesales other publications, including our own, we have an erotics division which publish's 4 gay mens jerk off magazines. I used to work for that division, so i know both newsstand and retail markets, adult and non-adult markets. We also own a list service/marketing company in NYC which compile's demographic lists from subscriber data and sells them to advertisers. So we have our hands in many pots and do you know how many employees we have? Over 120 employees. It takes rougly 7-10 people in editorial for each title, another 3 in accounting, 2 in sales, 1-2 advertising not mention the labor at the printer and the costs of shipping. It takes a lot of money to make a magazine every two weeks and every month. Of course we make more on subscriptions. But not as much as you think. Its a huge mailing process. Not to mention the 800#/customer service. That costs money.We contract another company to do that, so factor that costs in too. Im not sure you are grasping the difference between Playboy and Maxim. Its not really a matter of second rate teasers. I'll repeat...to a publisher, Playboy and the like are jerk off mags period. Though Playboy is a "classy" exception to many rules, bottom line, its a wank mag. Maxim, is just reading fodder. People don't buy Maxim exclusively for the pictures just like people rarely buy Play exclusively for the interviews. You are thinking Maxim and the like are something they arent. The publishers know what they are doing and who they are selling to, ergo they are so successful. Not everyone likes reading papers, papers can be too serious for some. I will say it seems you spend way too much time on celebrity culture. Shit, you shoudl live here. The first 3 nights this week consisted of movie premires across the street from my office here, that new Jim Carrey flic, that new Tom Cruise movie and Ali...so the whole red carpet, interview, mundane E Network crap all takes place right here 2-3 times a week. |
However, somehow I'm sorry I mentioned it. I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest. |
i dont buy it but often read the copies that are alleays in the barbers and dentists etc, its a bit of light comic releif with a small amount of female flesh in, the majority of it is usually articles and letters, but primerily adverts! |
Yes/I guess having some idea of what's going on in the world might be too serious for some people. But we were talking abt reading that's acceptable on the subway or in the office. Nobody expects to be able to peruse Black Tail at their desk. But in NY, Chicago or LA/I imagine you can get away w/reading Maxim at work. Assuming you're not working at St. Catherine's School for Girls. And actors interest me becuz movies interest me. I don't get to pick who Vanity Fair decides to put on their cover/but it's always somebody famous. That's what sells magaznes. |
Yes/I guess having some idea of what's going on in the world might be too serious for some people. But we were talking abt reading that's acceptable on the subway or in the office. Nobody expects to be able to peruse Black Tail at their desk. But in NY, Chicago or LA/I imagine you can get away w/reading Maxim at work. Assuming you're not working at St. Catherine's School for Girls. And actors interest me becuz movies interest me. I don't get to pick who Vanity Fair decides to put on their cover/but it's always somebody famous. That's what sells magaznes. |
|
|
|
|
\ |
barbie |
|
|
|
|
|
