Magazines: The Glossy Hub of Mediums

Magazines are a pivotal medium force in society. They depict one's personality, solidify gender differences, and present an educational pop culture reference for society.  They are an outlet for creativity and provide a present snapshot of culture for consumers.  

Magazines illuminate one's personality. If one is seen reading Vogue, we can infer they are sophisticated, older, and fashionable. If one reads Cosmopolitan, they are young, hip, and edgy. If one reads W, they are an avid fan of fashion and photography. If one reads US Weekly, they love being in-the-know and gossiping. In addition, if one reads Allure or Elle, they love commercialized fashion (more commercial than Vogue or W) and enjoy beauty tips and feminine essentials. 

Magazines provide an outlet for creativity and allow the reader to escape into an augmented reality. In actuality, magazines are extremely similar to the internet. When one reads them they are taken into another hemisphere, one filled with tips, fashion, beauty, and editorial columns. They are the bibles of pop culture, the house for advertisements, and the catalyst for celebrity and socialite news. The fashion spreads a reader in W or Vogue reads is an escape from reality. They are taken into a fictional world with unbelievable clothes and locations. Moving forward, the role of creative directors at magazines has become much more important recently. Traditionally, the Chief Editor has controlled the creative direction of the magazine. However, recently there has been two additions to the executive team: a creative director and fashion editor (for fashion driven magazines).  Together, these three form the core of the magazine brand. They create editorial columns, edit fashion shoots, and control the brand image of the magazine. 


Magazines are a significant medium of pop culture. These glossy pages provide a snapshot of the pop culture, fashion, or current issues that are being discussed in society. For example, Vogue has a political section, W has an economics section (surprisingly), and Vanity Fair has a current issues section. Although these publications are perceived as fashion magazines, in reality, they provide a snapshot of the political, social, and economical issues in society. Although they might not be the New York Times, they fuse together fluffy issues (fashion) and meaty issues (politics, economics, etc.). They are tangible snapshots, versus virtual references. They are books of culture, which can guide consumer preferences, brand awareness, or consumer perception of pop culture. For example, US Weekly keeps readers up to date on celebrity gossip (whether it's true or not). On October 13th, in class we discussed Murdock, McCron, & Puresehouse's piece called MediaViolence & Tabloids. In the piece, he discussed how tabloids appeal to the lower class. I throughly disagree with this stance--everyone reads tabloids, regardless of their economic background. In addition, they discuss the power of journalism, and the negative effects it has on the population. I would argue that journalism has many more ripples of positivity than negativity. 

Overall, magazines illuminate ones personality, provide an outlet for creativity, and are a significant medium of pop culture. This also connects to our reading on October 12th. Croteau and Hoyne present an "encoding-decoding model" in which the marketer encodes a message and the consumer reads the message through a medium. Magazines are the medium for a variety of messages including advertisements, fashion trends, celebrity news, and beauty essentials. Moreover, the roots of societal mediums was transformed by the printing press (similar impacts at the telegraph mentioned in class) and the ability for information to be distributed worldwide. Although rumors are swirling around the death of the magazine industry, the internet boom, and the lack of advertising dollars companies are allocating, hopefully the publication world will pull through and prevent the death of this pivotal medium in society.




Thoughts?


MM

Cars: Messages Interwoven Into Machinery

            Cars serve as a catalyzing medium force in defining us in society.  Their interior components and exterior features shape our perceptions of people. Overall, cars can be a driving force in our perceptions of people. They serve as a forceful medium through the interior and exterior. Bumper stickers convey personal beliefs, the type of car defines level of affluence, and the interior defines their lifestyle.  However, through the readings from O'Donnell & Lewis, we see these assertions can lead to false stereotypes and broad generalizations about individuals. 
           The type of car can communicate a persons level of affluence. The initial reaction is very different when one sees someone driving in a Ferrari versus a Kia: a Ferrari alludes to wealth, while a Kia alludes to a less affluent driver. It can also convey interests: if a person is driving a Prius, they are inherently environmentally conscious, verus a driver who is sporting a Hummer, who hypothetically, is not environmentally attune. In addition, is one is driving a vintage vehicle, they value car character over function.  On a micro level, at Babson College, many are defined by the car they drive. Conversations are flooded with "Did you see that Bentley in the parking lot?" or "Can you BELIEVE he drives an Escalade? I didn't know he was wealthy...".On a macro level, when we drive on the highway and see a BMW or Porsche, we automatically categorize the driver as wealthy.   
          Cars can define our lives. For example, when my car is neat, my life is organized. On the contrary, when my car is filled with papers, coffee cups, tanning lotion, and clothes, it shows my life is hectic. If one sees softball bats in the trunk, chances are the person is an athlete. One can learn realms about an individuals lives by looking through the drivers personal artifacts in a car. It also communicates our personal preferences: when one turns on the car, the radio automatically blasts music. If it's on a rap station, the person prefers rap music--as opposed to a CD with club music, which means the person likes house music. 
          Bumper stickers convey our personal beliefs. When driving, bumper stickers serve as a sub-medium to communicate their views pertaining to politics, academia, or general personality characteristics. If one has a bumper sticker stating, "I Love George Bush", we make the assumption they are a Republican. If we see a bumper sticker with stating "Proud Honor Student", we assume they are intelligent. If we see a sticker stating, "Texas A&M University", we assume they (or one of their family members) attend that university. Bumper stickers open the door to the general public and openly display minuscule pieces of your personal beliefs.
         However, there are obviously cases where these are false accusations. Following Croteau and Hoynes logic, this mechanical representation does not necessarily reflect the economic interests, personal beliefs, or level of affluence. This medium can yield stereotypes and can paint a broad misrepresentation of a persons greater lifestyle. In addition, I would argue these are negative mediums, and serve as an easy channel for categorizing individuals and compartmentalizing the masses into mechanical boxes. 

Vintage Car = Car Lover

Leather Interior: Affluence

BMW = Wealth 

Ferrari = Car Lover

Old Car = Less Affluent

Prius = Environmentally Conscious

Hummer = Not Environmentally Conscious

Honda = Functionality

Bumper Stickers = Personal Beliefs 

Interior of Car = Chaotic Life

A Fabricated Society

       Clothes weave intermingled tales of an individuals outlook on life, on the crowd one associates with, or an individuals views the world. However, behind these initial accusations, clothes are a mere representation of a company's brand. When one wears a brand, it makes a statement concerning their personality and beliefs. Thus, branding serves as the true medium between clothes and the message. Clothes are the tangible product, and the brand is the mental message derived from the artifact. Moving forward, clothes serve solely as a middle man between the subject and sender. 

             On a micro level, individuals can often be defined through the brand or style they choose to portray in society. For example, if one is wearing a Chanel suit, one would assume they are a classy, wealthy individual. On the other hand, if one sees an individual in a Nike track suit, they assume that person is an athlete. As O'Donnell and Lewis discuss, these judgments create individualistic stereotypes in society (hypothetical example: jocks wear sweat suits, fraternity brothers wear polos). In Croteau and Hoynes's discussion of rappers, they state all rappers wear baggy jeans, over sized t-shirts, and sneakers. Moreover, the sterotype of rappers is then formed through the classification of individuals. Thus, are the general societal opinions of individuals defined through mere pieces of fabric stitched together? 
          Moving forward, this notion escalates to a broader generalization of the entirety of the whole. On a macro level, clothes can shape a generation. When I think of the 70s, large bell bottom pants come to mind,  coupled with floral and psychedelic prints, finished off with obnoxious platform shoes. My frame of reference for the 1970s is defined through clothes, rather than political reform, historical events, or economic policy. Clothing serves as a medium to communicate styles or attitudes of an individual. Collectively, these individuals are categorized, and shaped by society. 

       Clothes purge the barriers of mere fabrics interwoven together. Rather, they serve as abstract mediums of communication between individuals of society. Clothing illuminate individuality, or stereotype an entire generation. They categorize our past, dictate our present, and propel our future. 

Ed Hardy 

Chanel

                                     
                                                        Louis Vuitton

Coach