Movie and music magazines always in 'men's lifestyle' section

[astreetcarnamedknackered]

It really pisses me off.

With my ex-mag-hag pedant hat on, in most shops they're not "in" the men's lifestyle category, they're next to it (same for motoring, leisure etc). This is because more men buy them so they put them where they are more likely to see them.

Obviously there is something chicken-eggy in there around whether more women would buy them if they were in their faces but buyers are v risk averse and limited on space, so you would never get these mags sited in both male and female categories.

I've seen Private Eye all over the shop (excuse the pun), and it's a constant struggle for mags like The Week, Time Out, New Statesman etc to find a position that makes sense, especially in supermarkets with limited numbers of mags on display.

Napdamnyou what you say is v interesting, makes me wonder how much of the positioning for "unisex"-type mags is ad-driven rather than consumer-driven I.e. We sell ads for aftershave so we have to see the mag in/next to the men's section. There are so many more women's mags for advertisers to place their "women's" products, it's easier for ad sales to cobble together a "men's" portfolio to sell across that includes music etc, that then means it's sited with men's mags, readership is mostly men, so ad-sales focus on men, etc etc in a big circle.

Anyone still awake? Sorry for how long and dull that was, but I can't bear to delete it all

Interesting. I was being a bit provocative, but I am startled by how defensive people are being on here about publications that I perceive as brain-dead shit. So, please, explain to me - what is the current feminist stance on OK, Grazia (I saw one comment above about its feminism, but I don't get it) etc? Are they supported? Tolerated? Encouraged? They appear to me to be the female equivalent of Nuts and FHM, but I would like to hear just how wrong I am.

Cameron, that is exactly it. It is easier to reach vast swathes of women via their mags, whether you want 'mass Market homemaker with children responsible for grocery purchases and most household spending' or '18-34 women with interest in fashion, style, beauty, high street fashion and propensity to spend large part of income on self'. Men are harder to reach via glossy mags. But mags, being an indulgent purchase, repeat- read aNd passed on, and oft returned to, with content which is all about buying stuff are a good ad environment.

So music, film mags get sold by ad teams as a portfolio sell with fhm, zoo etc as male lifestyle package. Content is written to provide right environment for the ads, attract the right desirable consumer.

i remember when Q magazine was worth reading, i think it's probably in mens section now as only they are sad enough to buy it (to keep the series going )

OP, I may be too pissed to follow your argurment properly, butI fuckinglove your user name.

If it is any consolation some blokes are seriously pissed off that all blokes are only interested in sport/stupid movies etc, and so magazine shelves are full of this shit. But seriously, do you care? If i was a bloke, would any of you be interested in me if I was not interested in garden sheds, motor racing, golf, etc?

Sanjeev If it is brain-dead shit, then it's not because it's aimed at the working classes. If it is brain-dead shit, then it's not because it's bought by the working classes.

Galdos Are you insinuating that women won't date men unless they display quintissentially 'manly' traits, like lurking in a shed? I think you'll find, on this section at least, that this is a resounding untruth. Feminists don't like stereotypes - we are painfully aware of how limiting and shit they are.

The Private Eye thing is infuriating. We now have a subscription so I can avoid the mags section altogether.

Victor, you have lost me. I am working class, but I am not a brain dead chav. There is a difference. I don't read about Kerry's latest breakdown, Kate's new knickers or Kylie's wobbly arse. Are these magazines enjoyed by feminists? Are they some sort of guilty pleasure? Nobody has answered my question on this.

What we appear to have here is faux outrage posted by someone who didn't like that certain mags are put on a certain shelf under a sign that said 'men's interests'. Then someone kindly provided proof that said mags are actually aimed at a male demographic, are are read mostly by men. So, in fact, it is a sensible place to put it. Have I got that right? If I want to read the Beano, I don't get arsey because it is filed in the kids' section.

Sanjeev, the problem is your use of the word "chav." Deeply horrible, derogative, placing people in a category.

Why is Heat chav, yet you didn't mention Vogue? Is Vogue ok because it has higher production values? Half of the Guardian's G2 section seems to be devoted to celebrity these days. Is that ok or is that chav?

People on here will argue to kingdom-come that "chav" isn't about the working classes, it's about how you dress, what you think, Wayne Rooney is a chav and he's rich - the word equates, however, to someone with no class and it is generally directed towards the working classes.

I read that kind of stuff occasionally, my brain can't always handle quality.

'Half of the Guardian's G2 section seems to be devoted to celebrity these days. Is that ok or is that chav?' Chav, undoubtedly, because it is dumbing down. Vogue is an (expensive) example of air-headed journalism for air-headed readers. Clothes, handbags, parties - how very interesting.

Chav is a state of mind. Let's look at someone, examine them, worship/slaughter them because they have a degree of fame. Let's watch X Factor and the poor, sad bastards who will humiliate themselves in front of millions on prime-time TV in the hope that they will gain some level of recognition.

What if I said I read Nuts now and again, because sometimes a man just wants to see a nice pair of tits? I need a break from The Economist. I don't see the difference, but I know one will get lambasted on here, and one is OK! And before you go on about objectification - how is highlighting Coleen's cellulite not demeaning her as much as showing a flash of her baps?

The great feminist Sanjeev berating the women for "going on about objectification."

I am not the feminist to answer your questions, Sanjeev. You need someone who gets a bit more excited about a pair of naked breasts, because 99% of the time, I can pretty much deal with the fact that men want to see tits.

Dumbing down, air-headed, "how very interesting" - well, maybe. Like I said, I don't always want to be intellectual. Sometimes I want to think about a handbag. Sometimes I want to read about inane celebrity twaddle. I really doubt that that makes me dumber than I was before.

Maybe just go easy on the word "chav", as someone who owns a puffa jacket, I find it problematic.

Er, Sanjeev, the very definition of chav is indelibly linked to the working classes. To call someone a 'chav' is usually to mock them for ideas above their station (see: Burberry caps). It was originally about mocking working-class people for buying into status symbols like designer labels. They might have money but they don't have the breeding, etc etc.

There's quite a good book called Chavs: Demonisation of the Working Class.

I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea.

"Its blurb makes it clear that is aimed at affluent male movie fans."

I should think so, when you look at the price.

Sanjeev, people are allowed to discuss what they like - you don't have the last word on what people ought to post about in the feminist section. Neither are people are required to come on and defend their reading habits (which you are speculating about anyway, as you don't know) to you.

Given the relationship between the mass media and portrayal of women, it's not really a crazy and out there subject to be discussing here, is it?

So music, film mags get sold by ad teams as a portfolio sell with fhm, zoo etc as male lifestyle package. Content is written to provide right environment for the ads, attract the right desirable consumer.

so depressing... 15 years ago my H and i liked reading Empire magazine equally but nowadays he reads it and i flick through it at best. it's making me annoyed now i think about it!

In our massive Tesco yesterday, noticed they have rejigged the magazines since i was last there, they now have 'News,Science and Tech', and 'Entertainment' - they must have been listening to us!

I actually bought New Statesman, because I could find it for a change.