|"Every woman should own a purse that only cost $499!"|
Um, okay. Those are some mixed messages you're sending there, Lucky.
I just want to say this: I have nothing against luxury items, and magazines such as Vogue don't bother me because they are upfront with what they are. They are either selling a fantasy to its less affluent readers or they are actually showing the rich all the high-end shit that only they can afford. But Vogue does not condescend. It does not try to pretend that its Gucci or Chanel dresses are for every woman, nor does it have the nerve to give us some positive affirmation on its cover that money doesn't matter.
The problem I have with Lucky's most recent editorial concept was how condescending it was. Putting Saldana's quote about money not being that important, but contrasting it to a list of items that are all under $500, as if that's a great bargain for most Americans in this struggling economy, is out of touch and annoyingly stupid. If Lucky wants to appeal to the average American, then it needs to stop peddling $200 sweatshirts and remarking to its reader how "affordable" it is. (see page 49 below for what I'm talking about.)
|On page 49, Lucky writes,|
"We are captivated by this L.A. brand's wildly original--
and surprisingly affordable--prints"
and then it shows the company's sweatshirt,
which costs over $200. Yeah, okay.
|"Zoe's Favorite Things Under $500"|
Stars, they're just like us!