Please don't promote the killing of animals, most in inhumane ways, to sell clothes and magazines.
--Betty A. Baldinger
I discovered More nearly a decade ago when I was in my early 40’s. At the time, I was starting to feel like I was cycling out of all the usual magazine fodder and I was thrilled to find something to bridge the gap between Cosmo and AARP magazine. The articles and features were relevant to my age at the time and the magazine felt like a path to my next decades. I was so excited; I got a subscription for me and my friends.
Over time, however, I noticed the articles were becoming more like all the other women’s magazines and the emphasis on topics related to middle-age and beyond (yes, I said it) were obscured in ads and articles for a younger demographic. I let my subscription lapse – I could read what you had in any number of magazines. I never bought another copy.
I happened to buy this month’s issue because I like Angie Harmon. Imagine my non-surprise when I read the editor’s anniversary recap and found that you decided to “erase the dividing line” because you were receiving letters from “thirty-something” women who were unhappy to be excluded from your “smart, savvy club.”
There’s a reason to consider women in middle age members of a savvy club. We’ve earned the privilege to be there. And while it seems everyone would like to think so, 60 isn’t the new 50, and 40 certainly isn’t the new 30. I can read what “thirty-somethings” are doing anywhere. I’ve been 30 and I’m happy to be past it. What I’m looking toward is my future with “women of a certain age” who are taking on new challenges, making world changes. It’s a unique group and should be celebrated!
You didn’t break down any barriers by “younging down” your magazine. You sold out.
I was concerned when I received the September issue of MORE and noticed the title on the cover "What to Wear at 30, 40, 50" It occurred to me for an instant that those of us who are dangerously close to 60 and over are now out the game, at least as far as MORE is concerned. My concerns were confirmed when I read your editorial re the 15th anniversary of MORE and your decision to "throw the doors open" to 30 year-olds. Interesting.
I have been a devoted reader of MORE since 1998, when I was in my early 40s. I have appreciated the focus of the magazine on our age group. As a woman in my late 50s who values health and beauty and style, I purchase and read a number of fashion magazines. My almost 30 year old daughter does too, but let's be honest, she and I have very little in common re our health, beauty, and style concerns and what interests us in a fashion magazine (She would never even consider picking up MORE!)
Clearly, women my age and older have health, beauty and style needs the younger demographic doesn't want to hear about - after all they are already turning to botox and other plastic surgery options in their early 30s - and appears that MORE doesn't want to address them either going forward. Now it seems that the decision has been made to slowly change the focus to the young, as fashion magazines exclusively do, the occasional feature of an older model, notwithstanding. From a business perspective you make choices to feature what will sell the most magazines. That's fine. I get it. But I challenge you to be quite a bit more sincere and honest about why the "doors are now thrown open." It's not about wanting to be inclusive of 30 year-olds because they want to be part of MORE's "smart, savvy (older women) club." It's about having a pretty young face on each page to sell the most magazines and no longer be the magazine that focuses on the smart savvy older women who are embracing the aging process and finding beauty in it! Ageism is not dead at MORE! In fact, it is thriving under the guise of inclusiveness of the young!
I will cancel my subscription to MORE magazine. My dollars will be better spent on a fashion magazine like Harper's Bazaar which makes no pretense about the market it targets.