Title : "There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!"
link : "There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!"
"There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!"
"There are no clues that this is a milestone moment in the struggle for survival of old media, and how women relate to the sisters-in-arms-advice-over-wine voice of the magazine, one that is now moving from their mailboxes to their inboxes. It is, consequently, both an anthropologist’s treasure, a perfect example of what exactly the problem is with legacy fashion magazines in the early 21st century — stories that can’t get published until well past their relevancy date (hasn’t everyone done that Meghan Markle piece?), fashion we’ve all seen before (hello, Instagram!) — and one that is entirely disposable, despite some smart articles. But thus does print go out: not with a bang, but a fizzle."Writes Vanessa Friedman in "Saying Goodbye to Glamour/The glossy magazine is pivoting to digital. It should have gone out of print with a bigger bang" (NYT).
Here's the sad final print cover of Glamour:
I was a fan of Glamour magazine in the 1960s, when I was a teenager. I even subscribed. The fashion was Mod. Loved it. But Glamour didn't adapt to the hippie movement. It even proclaimed the hippie movement had died, and it was pretty obvious that from the magazine's perspective, it had to die, because hippies didn't buy makeup, didn't get their hair done, and wore jeans and various thrift-shop rags. It was stylish and fun not to spend any money. Looking back, with a perspective of half a century, I'm sad that women of today wear more makeup than ever, torture their hair into ludicrous "beachy waves," and spend money on glitzy, uncomfortable clothes. I said go to hell to Glamour in about 1968, and I still say go to hell.
(I also read Glamour ever month for 2 years in the early 70s, when I worked in a market research firm that did a report on magazines, and we had a lot of fun mocking the drivel in that and many other magazines.)
Thus articles "There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!"
that is all articles "There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!" This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!" with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2018/12/theres-no-drumroll-for-goodbye-to-paper.html
0 Response to ""There’s no drumroll for the 'goodbye to paper,' no editor’s letter extolling the virtues of the more immediate future — we’re off the newsstand but on all your devices!""
Post a Comment