MAGCULTURE.COM / BLOG

16 Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post. Trackback URL

The double drop shadow on the title, and the fact the title is cropped off the page is bad enough.

Damn how do these people get such privileged jobs with so little talent?

Ugh Jessica Simpson. I hate the unnecessary cleavage. Showing it does not distract from how awful the cover it.

just lohan/monroe mark 2, even cheesier, even more desperate, betraying a magazine running out of ideas. ugly ugly cover. they’ll get soo much flak for this as this backfires all over the shop.

loving the british esquire at the moment though. not a massive fan of the design, but the editorial is great. actually a mens magazine im not afraid to read on the train home.

It’s a given at this site that the design gets notice first, but did anybody pay attention to the lame-o cover line (hard to notice, I know, with Jessica hogging up the cover space)?

“We Shot This Image to Catch Your Eye So You Will Pick Up This Issue…And Immerse Yourself In The Most Gripping Story You Will Read This Year”

Well, with such a pedantic, conspicuous entreaty such as that one, you basically turn off anyone who actually reads the articles in Esquire.

wow.. we’re on the same page again
http://www.sad-blog.com/?p=1090

I just made similar comments about this the other day… ruined the meaning of the original, purposeless. The cover lines, cleavage with whoopsie mess on them, and jessica simpson makes the magazine feel like their demo is now Maxim readers. Also, I feel like the actual shot is terrible… the angle it was shot, what they used of her in the frame, and the shaving cream makes her look like she’s going for a goatee. For a great homage, check here

Why oh why, is the UK Esquire treated in such a different way to the US one. The US magazine gives off a feeling of desperation for someone to buy it. The UK edition shows off such confidence it makes you feel stupid for not buying it.

The US style of magazine design is so dated in comparison to the UK. However, going over to the US and seeing it in situ., it fits it’s audience perfectly.

What does that say about the US audience though!

I’m already bored of the coverline treatment Esquire US has taken on. Yet, still, good fonts, good colour… how can you get it so close, yet so wrong.

Yeah but the uk edition has the worlds most girly typeface. Let’s not get carried away here

You have to remember also that this is part of a series of classic homages for their 70th anniversary. Which leads to the inevitable question: who, in the final cover of the year, will they mock up as Muhammed Ali/St Sebastian? Justin Timberlake? David Beckham? Or, in a Lois-ian style way, if Hillary gets the nomination, maybe an Obama lookalike?

The interesting thing here to me when comparing both is this:

(sans grainy vs. crisp photography)
The older esquire looks newer and
The newer esquire looks dated.

There is a time and place for interesting typography, but choking your cover with it only dates it to a certain period- not unlike cell phones in film.

Sometimes a clean typeface without any special effects & a bold focused and properly cropped photo will do it.

Take this as a lesson in visual love-making versus visual gang-banging.

Jonny,

You don’t have to bash Americans to make a point about why US Esquire sucks so bad. There are plenty of readers over here who are turned off by the kind of frat-boy level pandering a la Maxim that editors think they have to resort to.

I would blame David Granger and his nearsightedness. Granger is the man who told the New York Observer that magazines will have to be more “magazine-y”. To wit:

“Magazines have to become more magaziney rather than less magaziney,” said Mr. Granger. “There are things you can do with your cover where the paper will actually fold into different shapes—this cool experience that will let you do novel editorial things, but it’s all very expensive.”

Okay? That would be the perspective of the person who’s running the Esquire brand in the States.

Having said that, when you compare the UK version of Esquire to the American on the newsstand, you actually notice the UK version first. They use very clean, usually white covers and the logo is unobstructed and simple to read.

I’ve actually come up to the newsstand and have mistaken the British version for a completely rejiggered American one. “Wow! They’ve cleaned up their act! This looks so much better!” and then I notice that it’s British.

The design of Esquire has been going downhill ever since John Korpics left. I just let my many-year subscription lapse, partly because of that hideous cover style they’ve been doing lately but mostly because they always seem to be trying way too hard to justify their use of sexy girls on the cover because, you know, they’re Esquire and it’s beneath them but they have to do it for business reasons so they come up with all these high concept excuses for pictures of half-naked chicks.

I switched to GQ, not a better magazine really but at least they don’t pretend to be intellectually superior to their own cheesy content.

I have to say that the Spanish Esquire is having quite wonderful covers as noted on this blog before.

It’s a real shame with this cover as the US edition of Esquire features some truly witty graphic designs throughout the magazine. It’s one of the reasons I subscribe to it.

The UK edition of Esquire, although nicely laid out and with cool new type treatments, just ends up plain dull after a few issues (I’ll leave out the lazy writing and horribly dated content, christ it feels like 1987 again with the over pandering to the City – I’ve stopped buying it in favour of the content of the US edition). The covers it seems are the only thing that stands up.

So US Esquire with UK covers please!

http://www.photoq.nl/media/qwebupload/scherende-vrouwen.jpg

A Dutch magazine called LINDA. – cover ‘inspired’ by

Add your comment