m|PH is sizzling this April (and the thing about boobs)

Posted by Jayvee Fernandez at March 21st, 2006

This is perhaps the most “daring” cover we did for the magazine featuring Phoem Baranda with a swimsuit. There’s an ongoing discussion in the advertising and magazine industry (mostly in the latter) of how putting sexy women on the cover becomes an effective marketing tool to sell. This comes from the notion that the largest demographic of mag readers are male.

Apparently, this formula seems to work because some statistics show that putting women in the cover of magazines contribute to better sales. The formula goes:

Increase in women’s cleavage = Increase in sales

The general question therefore is does sex really sell?

Though it may be a sweeping generalization, there actually may be a direct relationship between putting a an outrightly sensual image of a woman on the front cover of a magazine. However, my boss did once say that if this were the case, then why are the top five magazines in the world not sexy mags? Though there may be some differences, here are the top five mags according to the Chicago Tribune:

1. WIRED
2. Real Simple
3. The Economist
4. Cook’s Illustrated
5. Esquire (perhaps the “sexiest” you can get among the 5)

Other magazines that made it to the “top 5″ survey include Wytch (a children’s mag), Reader’s Digest, TIME, and Men’s Health. Where is FHM? Where is Playboy?

But consider this point:

Outside creative director Hannah McCaughey says artistic inspiration rather than newsstand calculation is responsible for her magazine’s recent spate of scantily clad covers.

“We always meant to shoot [Carlson] with the garden variety rock climbing clothes on but … I was worried I’d come back with super bland film,” McCaughey says. “For whatever reason it just felt so pedestrian and not like a cover should feel. Then the photographer tried some things with just her shirt off and it instantly became something beautiful and pure, just her skin and the texture of the rock made such a gorgeous contrast–the dopey spandex clothing seemed to interrupt all that.”

[read the source here]

The best way to describe “wrong context covers” is to take the Boobs in Your Face approach (this may not be a good example because it uses Esquire. But for purposes of illustration … let it be so!).

“As a woman I find it so much more appealing and tastefully done than the boobs-in-your-face-stuff Esquire’s always doing,” McCaughey says. “I love it and think it’s just a normal part of us delivering surprises and beautiful photography to our readers.”

So when is it okay to put a “sexy” lady on the front cover? The guideline we live by, at least here where I work, is that everything should be in context. Phoem is wearing a sexy (but elegant) swimsuit because it’s summer. She’s holding an Olympus mju series camera, known to be an all-weather resistant model. Hence, she took it out to the beach.

So how does this all stack up? Well, as I’m writing this, Elbert Cuenca of PhilMUG arrived for our meeting. I showed him the issue and told him, “so what do you think of our first sexy cover?” And Elbert looks at the cover, brings it closer to his face and exclaims, “Uy, Olympus!”

Sex sells. Yes. But so do other things.

I rest my case.

* “Top 5 Magazines” argument actually came from my boss during a media presentation. I think it was a Wednesday.

You might also like ...

• October 5, 2007 -- Free tickets and a ‘Thank You’ to my readers! (23)
• August 2, 2006 -- virtually moving stuff around (3)
• June 28, 2006 -- Bubbles Paraiso (5)
• June 15, 2006 -- Our third year celebration! (2)
• April 26, 2006 -- a midsummer geek’s dream (7)
• November 16, 2005 -- Alternatives to flying (5)
• June 16, 2011 -- My Dive Gear (10)
• April 30, 2009 -- So will you buy Crocs after they’ve reinvented themselves? (9)
• November 22, 2008 -- One skin care product all men should consider using (10)
• June 30, 2008 -- Watchmen the Movie: Criticizing the Character Costumes (6)