Vogue - do you love or hate its new direction

[lemonsandlimes123]

Personally I hate it. I think Enninful is an awful editor and that if he wants to be a social campaigner then Editor of Vogue is not the right job for him. I buy Vogue for fashion and escapism and sometimes good journalism, not for virtue signalling by the fashion industry. i won't be buying it again whilst Enninful is editor.

No, personally I would rather they did their job and blathered on about frocks.

I like clothes. Even in times like these - in fact especially in times like these - I like wearing them, looking at them, thinking about them. I am not embarrassed about this. I will hazard a guess that motoring magazines are still talking about cars and football magazines about football.

Soz cross post.

Vogue is never going to ask tough questions about the ethics of the fashion industry, which lets face it, are dreadful. They can't survive without the ads which makes them dependent on the LVMH's of the world.

We all need to ask those questions but most people won't like the answers. Between exploitation of workers, mostly women, and the disastrous environmental impact there really is no ethical way to shop on the high street. But on the other hand the fashion industry generates multimillions which the government depends on. And of course people need clothes, and want them to look good, and want to pay as little as possible for them. The whole industry is a mess and magazines are tangled up in it.

Covid has really highlighted this, the Leicester sweatshop workers risking their lives making £5 dresses for teenagers to wear once and then bin, while the multimillionaire owners of PLT, etc loll on their yachts, feign surprise and say they'll 'look into it'

No I don't think they will ever ask those questions either. I don't see how they can. Which is why I'm looking through it right now and can only see posturing.

@Floisme posturing is a good way of putting it.

All this 'woke' stuff is a sham if you don't expose the truth about the industry. No matter how much they push the activism angle they are still turning a blind eye to the exploitation of workers, rank hypocrisy really.

I don't doubt that EE is sincere, but he knows how exploitative the industry is. I wonder how he feels about that.

I imagine he feels very conflicted, as do I sometimes. Ironically, if he were ever to produce a magazine that faced up to that discomfort, I would probably find it compelling. But I can't see Vogue ever letting him do it.

The magazine can't afford to be critical, no, but they could be utilising their YouTube channel (and digital expansion was probably their focus pre Covid19, what that will be like now is anyone's guess as advertisers have pulled back drastically) for the more difficult conversations. The earning model is different there and they have no impact on the content.

Obviously, that can get back to their magazine advertisers but as long as you keep the conversation general rather than specific and explore the systematic issues they'd get away with a lot and provide something meaningful. Eg. Modern slavery in the garment making industry as opposed to singling out Boohoo (who are just the ones that got caught). I think American Vogue (?) has dabbled with this in the post me too moment and did an extensive docu series on their yt channel about the mistreatment and abuse models suffered. It wasn't anything groundbreaking but it was a lot more critical and discomforting than I had anticipated from a Vogue production and it didn't spare their own participation in the system.

Vogue was my ultimate escape from about the age of 13, all through the 90 and 2000s. It's not for me now.

I like clothes. Even in times like these - in fact especially in times like these - I like wearing them, looking at them, thinking about them. I am not embarrassed about this.

Think you've summed up my manifesto there, Flo

This is such an interesting thread. Like others, I read Vogue religiously when I was (much) younger - we're talking the original supermodel era, god how I wish I still had some of those issues - but these days am more inclined to read it at the hairdresser. Ironically I'm now thinking I'll pick the September issue up when I'm back from holiday next week to take a proper look.

Agree with a lot of what's been said so far about the limits of "activism" and the advertiser-funded business model. I also have very occasional dealings with them through work and can't say there seems to have been much of a change in general arrogance levels attitude there since EE took the helm. But that's purely anecdotal.

Race doesn't come into it, sorry to disappoint you. I mean, come on. Race absolutely came into it when NO black women were appearing on the cover, etc, etc. I like escapism too but it's hard to enjoy escapism if there's a great big gaping hole where non-white people should be being included and are not being.

Have resigned myself to the fact that I'm definitely not Vogue's target demographic. Hard to see how they will maintain their traditional advertisers in a market of decreasing budgets if activism rather than high end fashion is their focus. Only buy Conde Nast Traveller and AD now.

This target demographic thing is a bit weird though, isn't it. I am sure Vogue and their advertisers know perfectly well that young activists - unless they're in possession of a trust fund - are not going to be buying these clothes. Hell when I was young I could barely spare the price of the magazine. They still need the custom of the affluent, most likely older, woman. They're trying to wave at one group while winking at another.

Of course fashion has always done this to a degree but the disconnect is getting so absurd you have to wonder how long it can hold.

That said, Enninful does seem to be surfing the zeitgeist remarkably well. The September issue might not be quite as hefty as in previous years but he's still managed to sell a lot of advertising and, in the current climate, that's quite an achievement.

Although I guess a lot of the advertisers are themselves trying to signal their ermm activist allegiances. All a bit strange. Fascinating though.

I did Politics at a top uni. Many of the fingerless glove wearing, rollie smoking, political students came from very wealthy families. My age group (mid thirties) in parts of the SE England and particularly parts of London, is full of people who have a lot of wealth and are also interested in politics. Even the right wing member of the tory government, is at least, trying to look interested in BLM though. So, I think you're mistaken to assume that young activists, or young ish activists, must be poor to have any interest in these issues.

No I didn't assume that, hence my reference to activists with trust funds. But you are correct, there's a lot of posturing going on.

Vogue and their advertisers know perfectly well that young activists - unless they're in possession of a trust fund - are not going to be buying these clothes. Hell when I was young I could barely spare the price of the magazine. They still need the custom of the affluent, most likely older, woman. They're trying to wave at one group while winking at another.

Well, you said this^^, which sort of implies their current demographic / market couldn't possibly afford to keep them in business and that you think, based on your other comments, that their trying to engage with these issues might put their current readership off. Well, I personally think this is overly simplistic. Fashion does not exist in a vacuum. The industry is affected by current affairs and has always been through history. I actually think fashion tends to reflect the times. So, clinging on like hell, to the old model, ignoring everything else that is going on in the world would actually make them out of fashion, wouldn't it? Fashion doesn't get decided upon by any particular group, so if they just did what you suggest older women like, they would end up out of touch with everyone else. Which would be foolish. My dad is nearly 70 though, (not at all into fashion), a high earner and very engaged in politics. I don't think it follows that older and richer = doesn't want to see this in their fashion mag. Just my view and all that.

Re posturing, well yes, it was always thus! But, for me, the fact that it's fashionable to be engaged in politics and especially social justice, is a good thing. Better than when it was fashionable to only care about making money, which is what I am told was the case in the eighties.

And fashion always has involved posturing. It's all about the image you portray and how you express yourself. So, I find it hard to shed too many tears over losing the old model for the fashion industry which was, what? Free of posturing? No, it never was. Maybe this actually will nudge fashion houses to be more ethical. But perhaps I'm being naive there. I certainly don't blame the new editor for trying to tackle these issues though, even if it is at least partially driven by profit and fashion...but then they're a fashion magazine, so of course they will be doing what is fashionable. Can't criticise them too strongly for that.

*their target demographic, (ie, those concerned with activism), couldn't possibly keep them in business.

Ah I see what you're saying, sorry. In that case, we do disagree as no, I don't think this new demographic is big enough to keep them in business.

I think Vogue still needs the custom of the 50+ hedge fund manager, as do their advertisers. She may be on Zoom mostly at the moment but she's still around and if she decides, 'fuck this lot' and switches to Tatler, then Enninful will have some explaining to do .

Basically, while I think there are some turbulent times ahead, I just don't believe the world has changed as much as you appear to. Time of course will tell!

But what makes you think that all hedge fund managers would not like this sort of activism, so much that they would refuse to read a magazine which did some issues on it? If it's posturing and a bit trendy to be an activist and these people are dedicated followers of fashion, what makes you think they won't follow this trend? Some 50+ hedge fund managers were probably around for the anti Vietnam war protests. It is completely bonkers to think that, because a handful of MNetters have declared that they don't like it, that anyone in a high earning job or the partner of someone in a high earning over a certain age, will dislike it enough to refuse to ever read it again... I mean, magazines have to change things around to stay fresh. It shouldn't be so shocking and terrifying to anyone who read it before, that they couldn't bring themselves to read it. And anyway, many Vogue readers can't actually afford the clothes they advertise. I won't say they have 100% not made an error here. Companies do make fuck ups which lead to their downfall sometimes. I just do not think this is it for Vogue. Will obviously have to check in this time next year to see if I'm proven wrong though !

Basically, while I think there are some turbulent times ahead, I just don't believe the world has changed as much as you appear to. Time of course will tell!

And I'm not predicting the hypothetical 50+ hedge manager is going to give away all her possessions and join Extinction Rebellion or anything. I just think the world has changed enough for people to not go off their favourite magazine because it features pieces on activism. Not earth shattering stuff at all really.

If it's posturing and a bit trendy to be an activist and these people are dedicated followers of fashion, what makes you think they won't follow this trend?
Oh they may well do so. But fundamentally that's precisely what I think this is: a trend. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's a trend which Enninful has so far read perfectly - I tip my hat to him. But as with all trends, I think it will at some point run out of steam, which is when we will see what he's really made of.

@Floisme

If it's posturing and a bit trendy to be an activist and these people are dedicated followers of fashion, what makes you think they won't follow this trend? Oh they may well do so. But fundamentally that's precisely what I think this is: a trend. Nothing more and nothing less.

It's a trend which Enninful has so far read perfectly - I tip my hat to him. But as with all trends, I think it will at some point run out of steam, which is when we will see what he's really made of.

That's a little different to hating the direction, people abandoning the magazine and its advertisers doing likewise though, which is what I thought you were implying up thread.

I tend to agree with you. This is probably, as much about fashion as it is a genuine desire for social justice. But, as trends go, it's one which might actually have some tangible benefits. So I support it.

What I really hate is when people refuse to engage in activism, which objectively is perfectly in the right, just because they don't want to look as if they're jumping on the bandwagon.

While some people might currently be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, I think that's preferable to refusing to do anything, lest they appear to be doing it for the wrong reasons iyswim...?

And fashion will always do what's fashionable, so I can't get to wound up about a fashion magazine being 'too trendy'. That is what it's there for!

Activism?

How about poor white girls? They do exist you know.

Or sweatshop labour? In fashion, for example?

What a load of twattery this virtue signalling is.

A black fashionista gay representing my interests. Hmm, I don’t think so.

Oops I wish I could delete that last post. I suddenly felt so angry!

Maybe Alex Schu was a bit tired and privileged. I get some of that view - maybe. But she was also treated badly. And the whole basis of fashooon being anti racist virtue signalling sticks in the claw just a bit ...

A black fashionista gay representing my interests. Hmm, I don’t think so.

I don't really understand what you mean here? In what way is her representing your interests? And why does it matter if the editor of a magazine is black and gay? Do you mean you are also black and gay? I am genuinely a bit confused by this comment, sorry. Not wishing to be goady.