We Hear You! Letters from Our March 2013 Issue

Leave a comment here or send us your feedback by letter or e-mail—we love hearing your thoughts!

by MORE • Editors

 Magazines often fall back on the "Audrey Hepburn" look to promote Mid century and 60's fashion revivals, as` you have in the description of this coat. Her unusually thin figure, and well known face could wear this coat,but most women have neither. The beautiful icon that was Audrey Hepburn gained that figure starving in occupied WW2 Europe; a price most of us wouldn't pay for fashion. 
--Betsy Koss

Dear Ms. Seymour,

Pin a plastic flower to my shoes?  To my lapel?  Purchase a sleeveless dress I have to modify with a sweater in order to wear it?  How aging is that?  Add shoes difficult and dangerous to walk in, and “old lady perfume,” and horizontal stripes--- enough!  What were you thinking?  In my mind’s eye I can see the sorting going on at your place.  Was the sixty- year-old category the default pile?

Okay, maybe I’m a little pissed off because I’m seventy and my category fell off the chart.  I’m slim and in good shape and take care of what I have.  I’m lucky.

I’ve also paid attention over the years to what looks good on me and other people.  When to cover up and when to flaunt, require an unflinching eye.  For example,  I want clothes I can move in--- grounding basics mostly in black and cosmetic colors like periwinkle blue, plum, and bright navy.   A couple of inches of heel makes me feel less chopped off.  A great handbag that goes for a number of years is worth it.   I want to feel unselfconscious and confident and the forget what I am wearing. 

I like your magazine but this article doesn’t do you justice.

--Thea Heying

I am a big fan and just want to pass along some comments on your recent issue.

1.   Please, please do not try to be all things to all people. You can’t have a cover blurb that refers to your 30s on the cover…and still expect to be credible to those of us in our 50s and beyond.  (Do the 30-somethings even know Connie Britton? Or that Patti Davis, who penned the essay, is Ronald Reagan’s daughter?)

2.   The younger generation that you’re trying to attract on the cover would rather die than be known as a “handsome woman” (another feature in the current issue).

3.   On the story about aging secrets many of the women you feature plug their own skin products.  Again, it damages credibility. (Like when you see a favorable restaurant review next to an ad for the same restaurant).   I realize you can’t change their response, but perhaps the interviewer can pose the question this way: “Other than your own products…”

As I mentioned, I have been a regular reader of your magazine since its inception.  But I’ve noticed a watering down of your original mission (which, frankly, I don’t see in “Oprah”) and it makes your voice seem less authentic, less “one of us.”

I know that the magazine business is tough these days, but there should be enough of us aging baby boomers (and fans of smart editing) around to make you a “must-read.”

--Bonnie Rubin

I have generally enjoyed More, and I always have the latest copy in my office waiting room. Unfortunately, two stories in recent issues have led me to decide to remove the magazine from my waiting room and to let my subscription expire when the current term ends. The stories featuring Katie Couric and Connie Britton were excellent, but the accompanying photos were, in my opinion, demeaning. Both women were described as smart and strong and independent people, but the photos portrayed them as sex kittens. The skimpy clothing and the seductive poses were such a stark mismatch with the content of the articles. I was baffled by the choice to produce these photos. I think it gives the wrong message to your readers, suggesting that no matter how successful a woman is in her career, her public appearance should always emphasize her sexual qualities. I hope you will consider portraying smart, strong, successful women who do not have to be photographed as sex objects.

Hi Lesley,

Share Your Thoughts!


Lynn Cadogan04.17.2013

I have never written a magazine before but you are always asking for comments and feed back, so I felt compelled to write. I enjoy reading MORE and share it with friends when I finish. The articles are appropriate and very informative but in looking at the ads I find a big discrepancy in the age of women you are "writing" for and the appearance of the models. Except for maybe Diane Keaton, I couldn't find a model that looked "mature" and had any wrinkles. I would like to see more advertising with vibrant, more mature realistic looking women since that is the demographic your magazine is written for. Thanks for letting me share my comment.


I read More cover-to-cover every month and have never written in before, but the article on the pills we can't kick was a major eye-opener. I was prescribed Effexor 3 years ago when I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was supposed to stop the hot flashes brought on by suddenly stopping HRT. After reading your article, I began to research Effexor and found that it causes hot flashes(!) and many other pretty nasty side effects. I started to taper off a few weeks ago and stopped taking it completely 6 days ago. The withdrawals are awful--really, truly awful--but I know eventually they will stop and I will no longer be putting my health in jeopardy taking a drug that isn't even meant to do what it was prescribed to do. If I still have hot flashes, I will suffer them naturally. I already take Black Cohash and will add other supplements or vitamins to help. Thank you so much for such an important article.

Carol 03.21.2013

No no no.....no 30 somethings in More! You promised a magazine for women over 40 - please honor that! And while you are at it, it wouldn't hurt to add "This is what 70 looks like". I read More front to back and back to front. I used to shop your ads for products I knew would be for me at my age.....but this is uncomfortably becoming more of my daughters' magazine. We deserve the More original market - I am waiting to spend....


I love More, and I love Connie Britton. And believe me, I am no prude. But I did not love the girlie-mag photos that accompanied an otherwise very good story on this very interesting, strong and intelligent woman. Did I pick up the wrong magazine? Have I turned into my Great-Aunt Lila Lee, who would have been shocked and appalled by the overtly sexy display of Ms. Britton's bits, barely covered with scanty scraps? I believe in celebrating our fabulousness. But I have to wonder -- to what audience were you playing with those photos? Has More decided to be Maxim?

Julie 03.04.2013

I have become very disillusioned with MORE. It seems you are trying to reach a younger demographic (already more than well served) by including the 30s, whilst paying less attention to women in their 60s and 70s. I am 51 and have nothing in common with women in their 30s with regards to skin care, lifestyle, etc. Reading other womens' comments, I see I am not alone in this point of view. I would love to hear from the Editor on why the 30 somethings are now included.

Kate Dockham03.03.2013

I enjoy your magazine, but often think it is geared to women of a different lifestyle than my on-the-go mom and teacher life. I was looking through the Stylebook: Dressing for the Decades, and found a pair of shoes I had to have whether in the teacher budget or not. So I went to the Vince Camuto site to find the studded black sandals shown and nothing! How disappointing that I finally take the plunge and follow a piece of information from your magazine only to be unable to even find a picture of the same sandals. It is only March 3rd, hard to believe the season/trend/moment has eclipsed me already. Just another lesson for this everyday teacher to learn.
Sadly Shoeless,
Kate Dockham

Post new comment

Click to add a comment