I've been a subscriber to most of the magazines you've edited. I love reading magazines and have done so for as long as I can remember. More has always catered to women over 40. Please don't change that very special side to the magazine. This is what sets it apart from the countless other publications geared to women in their 30s. Go back to your original plan and celebrate women in the second half of their life. So much more interesting.
Where, oh where has my MORE magazine gone?
As a charter subscriber, I looked forward to many years of relevant articles/photos to support my journey into senior womanhood. But wait! MORE seems to have abandoned its 45-64 year-old targeted demographic, electing instead to go the way of other youth obsessed magazines. Why?
Why must you also photoshop images of every woman who appears in your magazine? (Especially ironic in the "This is what --- looks like" feature.) Is the sight of a mature woman really so repulsive?
Having walked through a number of magazine headquarters in NYC, I can only conjecture that the problem with your magazine is the same as many others... the majority of your staff is just too young to "get it." Perhaps your seasoned professionals can steer MORE back to it's original mission: addressing the issues facing women past the childbearing years.
Blaze some trails! Don't be afraid. You were headed in the right direction but somehow chickened out. We're out here, ready and waiting to read.
--Amy Virginia Evans
Really? You really think women on their 60's should wear this stuff? Black and white clown pants and black and white full skirts and black and white horizontal striped tent coats? Women in their 60's are not stupid. According to this article, we should throw out all our color and prepare for death. You will not understand how ridiculous these choices are until you are my age.
I have read all the letters for the March issue. I am summarizing those that were repeated multiple times that I agree with completely. After marketing your magazine towards 40+, why are your creating a 2 page fashion spread for women in their 30's? Trust me, they are not reading More Magazine. Please continue with the concept, but replace 30's with 70's. After all, women in their 70's are thriving these days. It's not what it used to be! Also, PLEASE stop doing photo spreads of celebrities looking like they are trying to be seductive. Connie Britton's pictures and the fashion was better suited to MAXIM Magazine. Katie Couric's pictures with her "come hither" sexy looks were just ridiculous! These are healthy, attractive women and we can't relate to them with your current approach.
Finally, please stop adding long articles that seem to reveal your political point of view. The article about the immigration attorney was a puff piece that was insulting to all of us who are struggling with the current economy and the possible amnesty that is heading our way. It's obvious that you are not aware that there are thousands of citizens who are unemployed and have all but given up looking for work. The suggestions in this article were insulting for those of us who are suffering in our states with the ever increasing burden that comes with immigration. Please continue with articles that are of interest to women and we will continue to subscribe.
After buying MORE from the very first edition, I am becoming a little disillusioned with some editorial (or perhaps marketing?) decisions. Recently I have noticed the 30s decade being included and I don't understand why this would be part of MORE's target demographic. There are already many magazines aimed at women in their 20s and 30s and these younger women do not face the same skincare, fashion and life challenges that older women do.