Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Saturday, August 15, 2021

before and after
Last year, I lodged my complaint about Esquire’s tendency to overload the magazine cover with words:

[I]t’s become a turnoff. In fact, I recently canceled my subscription to [former Esquire cover-art designer George] Lois’ old periodical stomping grounds, in large part because I was finding that those text-gorged covers were constantly turning me off each month. Far from enticing me to open the cover and dive in, the instant in-your-face design seems a bit too desperate for attention.

Since then, I’ve re-upped my subscription. But I’m still less than pleased with that same cover-design aesthetic, which hasn’t abated. The George Clooney cover pictured above is from April 2008, but to me, it’s practically indistinguishable from this month’s issue: Same central photo being crowded out by far too many blurbs, making it a visual jumble. It’s a case of too many editorial thumbs insisting on a sliver of the front-cover real estate, instead of presenting a clear, distinctive image. I’m sure next month’s issue will be just as much of a clone.

Maybe that’s the trouble — the covers look too similar from month to month, and consequently, I subconsciously presume that the contents will be just as similar each month. I know that they won’t be, but the cover does become a mental barrier, instead of the enticement it’s supposed to be. Maybe I’m atypical in that reaction, but if not, I can’t believe this is helping newsstand sales.

Good thing the preferred subscription rate I got for Esquire was nominal. Otherwise, I’d just cancel it again. As it is, I can’t see why I’d re-up once this one ends.

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 08/15/2009 02:02:45 PM
Category: Creative, Publishing
| Permalink | Trackback |

2 Feedbacks »
  1. It’s not just Esquire covers that look the same every month - almost all mag covers do now. They don’t distinguish themselves from each other outside of a different wordmark. The generic celeb poses are quite a yawn.

    Comment by David — 08/17/2009 @ 01:02:44 PM

  2. True enough. Someone needs to create an InDesign/Quark virus that wipes out those overused templates, just so designers are forced to cook up something new…

    I still say that Esquire’s blurbage is more jumbled and crowded than most mags’.

    Comment by CT — 08/17/2009 @ 01:14:54 PM

RSS feed for feedback on this post.

Say something! (with optional tweeting)


Comment moderation might kick in, so please do not hit the "Say It!" button more than once.

Tweet this comment, too!

(Don't worry, your Twitter Name/Password is NOT saved.)