I've been reading/subscribing to MORE since the beginning of the magazine, and was pleased to finally have a publication directed towards the mature woman. So many publications already exist that cater to young singles, young mothers, young marrieds, young everything - having a magazine devoted to women past that stage in life was refreshing and important. Sure, mature women are also single, new mothers, newly married, or new at everything else, too. The fact that those situations are happening to the mature woman, the perspective from which she approaches them, plus the manner in which we handles them all make it very relatable to your mature readers.
Not sure what other feedback you've received, and AM sure you're not going to change direction, either. Wanted you to know of one very disappointed reader who won't be renewing.
I turn 60 on December 18, and what do I get from More? "Your Best Hair at 30, 40, 50" You said the 30-somethings demanded that More include them, but I suspect you wanted advertising dollars and to hook younger women on your magazine. Women in their 60s are your customers NOW! We have more money. We need more advice on beauty and clothes and we're willing to buy quality products. Frankly, your new direction is a lousy birthday present.
Dear Ms. Seymour,
I'm an active, avid 51-year-old woman who has enjoyed reading More magazine for the past decade or so. I subscribed for most of those years, and it's been a favorite, meaningful resource amidst a busy life with little time to devote to magazines.
However, I find that I'm not nearly as drawn to More as I used to be, since you started shifting your focus to include women in their 30s. I let my subscription lapse almost subconsciously, once I saw frequent mentions on your cover about "30s" as well as 40s and 50s.
I read your editor's letter that explained you were trying to reach out to those women in their 30s who were saying, 'We're here, too - we want to be part of your audience.' But you must know as well as I do that there is a big difference between a woman who's 30 and one who's 50 - or even 40. What I loved about More was that it was a great source of content for 40+ women -- a midlife demographic dealing with issues and phases and challenges and rewards quite different from someone who's still largely in her youth, according to today's cultural standards and expectations. It was a refreshing presence on my newsstand, amidst the plethora of titles for women in their 20s & 30s.
As you've diluted the content, less of it is as targeted to my interests. It was perhaps also an economic decision - by adding "another decade," you can expand your potential audience - but you lose the niche market that made More so great.
I love seeing Emma Thompson on the January 2014 cover. I don't want to see Sarah Michelle Gellar. I can relate to a woman on the cover who's my junior, but I'm not looking for content geared to someone who's where I was 15 or 20 years ago. I want to read about midlife transitions, career shifts, parenting teens and young adults, aging gracefully at midlife (not "aging" at 30)... I want to see images of women around my age, who can inspire me toward fitness and a standard of attractiveness that's possible at MY age, without a bunch of surgery.
If women in their 30s liked More before, as it was, then they can choose to read it. Just as I can choose to read Glamour if I want to, without asking them to feature models who are my age.
If you return More's focus to the 40s/50s/even 60s segment (after, women in their sixties are amazingly vital these days, and it's really like a midlife decade now), I'm sure I will be buying it "more"!
Just wanted you to know.
I am 71 years old, a retired educator living on state pension and social security, such as it is. Today as I read More, I had these thoughts. (You are not going to like them.)