We Hear You! Letters from Our November 2013 Issue

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

by MORE • Editors

Please, please, please stop accepting fragrance "enhanced" advertising. I love your magazine, but had to toss the latest issue out before I could even read it because it was so heavily perfumed. I suffer from fragrance allergies, so am more sensitive, but I have to believe that other readers out there -- allergies or no -- got headaches, too.
--Dana

I'm loving my new subscription to MORE, however I'm an active, fit, young looking 70 year young women. I would love to see MORE go a step further in including my age group while it addresses so many pertinent issues for women of all ages. I have a daughter who turns 50 this year and she has taken up tennis so she can be as healthy and fit for a long as possible too. Come on MORE let's show the world that even 70 or 80 is beautiful!
Many thanks,
--Beverley Camp

While there is no doubt that Emily Wakeling looks stunning in her new outfit in the November Stylebook, not many of us can afford to spend over $2400 on just one outfit.  The concept of closet updating is an excellent one but the article needs to work within the average woman's budget.  Would Emily be able to afford your recommendations?
--Anonymous

Hello,

I am a long time subscriber of MORE Magazine and want to share my reaction at my latest issue. The models used in the ads within the magazine are too young to represent the readership of your magazine.  Example- Estée Lauder's double page ad on the inside front cover depicts three young women who appear to be in their 20's, the next ad is ProX Olay with a model who might be in her 30's, and then there is an ad for Eileen Fisher with a beautiful young woman who is in her 30's... I have noticed this trend with each issue that I have received and finally decided to communicate my dissatisfaction.

I am 54 yrs old, and am fairly certain that there are models my age who can successfully represent and sell the products that advertise in your publication.  I belong to a fitness group comprised of women in their 40's, 50's, and even their 60's who are amazing, fit and beautiful who could lend a more realistic representation.

I am actually offended by the fact that the companies who spend millions of dollars trying to get me to purchase their products, don't have the sense to show someone my age using these products.

I feel that it's important to be true to your mission of empowering women in their 40's, 50's and 60's to embrace their beauty, talents and lives and reflect "us" in the pages of your magazine.

Sincerely
--Kathryn A. Ridner

I loved MORE. It spoke to my demographic with style and intelligence. I would read it cover to cover each month.  However, it's recent shift to a more 30 something perspective is troubling. Sarah Michelle Gellar is probably a lovely person, but she's 35.  The models you are using  (with the exception of the spread with Lauren Hutton.. By the way.. Fabulous) are twenty years younger than me.  You've become just another Marie-Clare or Glamour. There are 100 magazines for 30 somethings. MORE was just for us. Your mission was clear, but you all have lost your way. Bring back my magazine!

Thanks for listening.
--Erin Saddic

Dear Lesley--

What’s your reaction?

Comments

Lulu Shelley12.01.2013

When I first discovered More is 2004 I was 44. I was so excited to find a magazine that discussed issues revelant to my age and older. I recommended this magazine to all my friends and became a subscriber. I have been reading letter after letter how you have changed it, along with you editorial discussing this a few months back. Maybe the magazine was losing money, who know? I almost hope that was the reason you changed it other than just making it your own, putting your stamp on it. This was not the vision of the founder and I would be furious if you did that.
I used to spend t least an hour on my first read through. Now, I spend about 30 minutes. The articles aren't as intriguing, but mostly it is do to the font size. I have to put on my bifocals to attempt to read your magazine, and even then I start skimming throught it. Too much type squeezed in narrow rows with small fonts.
I plan on letting my subscription run out. It's a crying shame what you've done to this one magazine for us.

Post new comment

Click to add a comment