Lipstick World

Topcounsel

Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the newsstand,
and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick" for
marathonners (I kid you not).

No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or equipment
review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going to have to
think twice about whether it may be too embarassing to be
seen with a copy!

Michael

It's published by Rodale. They turned Prevention magazine
into a womens health and beauty rag, probably going to do
the same with RW.

TopCounsel wrote:

> Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
> newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
> for marathonners (I kid you not).
>
> No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
> sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or equipment
> review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going to have to
> think twice about whether it may be too embarassing to be
> seen with a copy!

Swstudio

"TopCounsel" <topcounsel@aol.com> wrote in message
> Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
> newsstand, and there is
a
> full-page spread on "lipstick" for marathonners (I kid
> you not).
>
> No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
> sometimes bought
RW
> for an occasional article or equipment review 2 -3
> issues/year?), but now
I'm
> going to have to think twice about whether it may be too
> embarassing to be
seen
> with a copy!

I stopped reading it years ago. It's clearly gone the way of
being a mag for fluff runners and cardio bunnies who are
running to lose weight. I don't blame the editors one bit,
since these people outnumber competitive runners (which
doesn't mean "fast", but simply a desire to improve) by a
huge margin. It's all about money.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

Malcolm Tempt

On 04 May 2004 16:31:41 GMT, topcounsel@aol.com (TopCounsel) wrote:

>Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
>newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
>for marathonners (I kid you not).
>

Sounds OK to me.

"There's nothing better than lipstick on my dipstick"

M.T.

Miss Anne Throp

I have to give these jogger mags credit. Anything more
than "right left right left" is going above and beyond the
call of duty.

Gentolm

i have heard it all BTW what do the females here have to sya
about it?? plodzilla the zilla has spoken

TopCounsel wrote:
>
> Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
> newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
> for marathonners (I kid you not).
>
> No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
> sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or equipment
> review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going to have to
> think twice about whether it may be too embarassing to be
> seen with a copy!

_!_

topcounsel@aol.com (TopCounsel) wrote in message news:<20040504123141.09715.00000924@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
> newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
> for marathonners (I kid you not).
>
> No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
> sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or equipment
> review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going to have to
> think twice about whether it may be too embarassing to be
> seen with a copy!

It's a very useful article for guys like Rebbechi and
gay-friends.

_!_

Camille

I seem to remember RW doing a similar article about
running makeup when they first started the "women's
running" section.

I also remember that they took so much crap for publishing
that article they had to provide an apology in the
following issue.

Really amazing that they would do it again. But if at first
you don't succeed...

gentolm <gentolm@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:<4098648E.B687C46F@boeing.com>...
> i have heard it all BTW what do the females here have to
> sya about it?? plodzilla the zilla has spoken

Teresa Bippert-

I actually subscribe to RW and I never saw it. I'll have to
go look at my latest copy. I only tend to "zero in" on ads
that are for something I'm interested in, or I ignore it. If
it's really there, I think it's badly misplaced. Lipstick
ads do not belong in a running magazine, sorry. I hope
Rodale is reading these and gets the idea....

Teresa in AZ (does wear lipstick sometimes, but not
while running)

gentolm wrote:

> i have heard it all BTW what do the females here have to
> sya about it?? plodzilla the zilla has spoken
>
> TopCounsel wrote:
>
>>Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
>>newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
>>for marathonners (I kid you not).
>>
>>No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
>>sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or equipment
>>review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going to have to
>>think twice about whether it may be too embarassing to be
>>seen with a copy!

Mwright

gentolm <gentolm@boeing.com> wrote in message news:<4098648E.B687C46F@boeing.com>...
> i have heard it all BTW what do the females here have to
> sya about it?? plodzilla the zilla has spoken
>
> TopCounsel wrote:
> >
> > Has RW been hijacked? I saw the June issue on the
> > newsstand, and there is a full-page spread on "lipstick"
> > for marathonners (I kid you not).
> >
> > No one else thinks this is a new low? I tell you, I have
> > sometimes bought RW for an occasional article or
> > equipment review 2 -3 issues/year?), but now I'm going
> > to have to think twice about whether it may be too
> > embarassing to be seen with a copy!

I think they will justifiably take a lot of flak for that
article. I just got my copy today. Total drivel and fluff.
If they want to provide focus articles for women, fine. But
it's a damn running mag, not Cosmo.

Hmm, actually, given their buff male models, maybe it really
IS Cosmo. I read the darn thing overall for entertainment,
although I do like their travel articles (dove into the
archives for one about Bellingham, Washington when I went to
visit my mom recently).

--Margaret (who has only purchased a red lipstick for
children's Halloween costumes)

Dot

Camille wrote:
> I seem to remember RW doing a similar article about
> running makeup when they first started the "women's
> running" section.
>
> I also remember that they took so much crap for publishing
> that article they had to provide an apology in the
> following issue.
>
> Really amazing that they would do it again. But if at
> first you don't succeed...
>

I wonder if in their recent shakeup, if they forgot history.
Most magazines want to keep their subscribers.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Topcounsel

>They turned Prevention magazine into a womens health and
>beauty rag, probably
going to do the same with RW.

Actually, it had occurred to me that maybe they were
consciously turning it into something like "Woman
Runner," or whatever. The cover also has a buffed out guy
in only shorts or something, as I recall. It may be that
their subscriber base is largely women to begin with, for
all I know.

Topcounsel

>I don't blame the editors one bit, since these people
>outnumber competitive runners

I don't begrudge them their market either,
but....LIPSTICK? C'mon, there's like a full-page
photospread with different color selections and gloss
types, etc.! Do even the lady runners out there really
want that stuff from a running magazine?

Dot

TopCounsel wrote:
>>They turned Prevention magazine into a womens health and
>>beauty rag, probably
>
> going to do the same with RW.
>
> Actually, it had occurred to me that maybe they were
> consciously turning it into something like "Woman
> Runner," or whatever. The cover also has a buffed out guy
> in only shorts or something, as I recall. It may be that
> their subscriber base is largely women to begin with, for
> all I know.
>

Not this one! Most of the women trail runners that I know
on-line wouldn't touch it. Not sure about our local
runners though.

Why get RW, when TrailRunner has much better cover photos
*and* useful information ;) (The shoe on the gear issue
cover that you saw isn't

does this), but the shots are pretty aggressive running (not
fashion poses), frequently with neat scenery in the
background. Excites primitive desire to just go run in the
mountains :) (well, for me they
do) Oh, yeah, and trail runners (at least the ones on
covers) look a little stronger and more experienced than
typical RW cover runner to get up the mountains ;) (look
at last issue with Dean Karnazes to see what I mean)

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Lyndon

topcounsel wrote:

>>They turned Prevention magazine into a womens health and
>>beauty rag,
>probably going to do the same with RW.
>
>Actually, it had occurred to me that maybe they were
>consciously turning it into something like "Woman
>Runner," or whatever. The cover also has a buffed out guy
>in only shorts or something, as I recall. It may be that
>their subscriber base is largely women to begin with, for
>all I know.
>

I am definitely NOT a fan of RW, and nothing they do on the
anti-athletic (word chosen carefully) side would surprise
me. But I did take a look at this issue in the supermarket,
and this is a Women's Special Issue, which I think they have
been doing for some years. I don't think they do anything by
accident (like they actually like running or racing);
Everything they do seem to have a bottom line bottom line.
So I'm not sure that much is different here, except the
change in overall style to compete with the *other* fitness
lifestyle mags (yes, I DO mean to say that RW is not a
running mag).

I know that the most rapidly growing demographic group for
marathons is women, so they might have gotten some
demographic research indicating that some (most?) female non-
marathoners might see marathons as a bit too un-feminine
(this is not a shot at runners; I'm talking about the health
club member types here). Thus the marathon-lipstick link.

The scantly-clad buff guy? Look at the covers of other
fitness mags. The male models look mostly look like personal
trainer types, not distance runners with about one ounce of
upper body. I'm quite sure there's a selling angle here.

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!"
--US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

Dot

TopCounsel wrote:
>>Not this one! Most of the women trail runners that I know
>>on-line wouldn't
>
> touch it.
>
> RW must surely be losing some market share to Trail Runner
> and its other competitors, because I seem to recall that
> the cover of one of the RW issues within the last 3 months
> or so had advertised a review of trail-running shoes
> inside the issue.

At least with me, they're not losing market share as they've
never had anything that appealed to me - even when I just
did casual jogging on roads or started more structured road
running before getting hooked on trails, and even today. It
wouldn't surprise me if that's true for many others. Judging
from the covers, they seem to be targeting a younger
audience than most trail runners.

I have a problem with them calling themselves Runner's
*World* and they largely cover US road running. I was
appalled that they didn't even mention the WMRT held for the
first time on North American soil - or if they did, I didn't
see it and was looking on their web site. Although they did
have an article on Mt. Marathon race about a year ago so I
guess they do recognize some off-road stuff. They do have
some info on high profile international races, like London
and some others, I think.

FWIW, my understanding, if one is to believe marketing hype,
is that trail running is one of the faster growing segements
of running and snowshoe running is also picking up speed.
Judging from the assortment of new styles of trail shoes on
the market, I'm inclined to believe this. About the time I
started trail running (about 2 yr ago), is when one of the
first books that I'm aware of on trail running came out
(Chase?, AATRA folks). A 2nd followed shortly after
(Mountaineering, iirc). And then RW jumps on the bandwagon.
I bought the 1st 2 but not the RW one so I don't know what's
in it - I was hardpressed to figure out where they had any
knowledge of trail running.

There's a ss running mag in the making. Currently online but
they hope to have a print version in a couple years. It's
not real great, but it's a start, esp. since ss running
information has been hard to come by in the past. It was
started by people that didn't have much (any?) experience at
ss running but saw a market niche.

Some of these types of running haven't been very organized
in the past, but are now having national championships, etc.
I'm not sure if that's good or not because of all the regs
that imposes (look at restrictions on WMRT course compared
to usual Alaskan mtn running course), but we can still go
enjoy our runs and ignore the highly regulated competitions.
More visibility might result in more choices in equipment,
races, etc.

>
> How they can view trail-running and lipstick as things
> for the same reader-base is beyond me (of course, many
> things are!).
>
Use lipstick to write emergency messages on tree bark? ;)

We have a new grocery store in town, and the mag section
is almost on the way back to the milk section, so I
occasionally look at the TOC to see if there's anything
of interest.

Dot wild imagination tonight

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Dot

TopCounsel wrote:

>>We have a new grocery store in town, and the mag section
>>is almost on the way back to the milk section, so I
>>occasionally look at the TOC to see if there's anything of
>>interest.
>
>
> The June issue is the one with the piece "Looking Good at
> 26.2," (or something like that). You can't possibly miss
> it, the page looks like something out of Vogue or its ilk.
> You may find it good for a laugh; I found it bewildering.

I had to stop and check on my way home today ;) (needed
bread anyway) Well, the lady had run 100 marathons. But to
be worried about lipstick at mile 23 ... I noticed she
always used the same kind, so not sure how they made the
leap from that to a full-page display. Actually, if you
hadn't mentioned it and Lyndon not made the comment about
the women's section, I never would have found it. Then
again, I don't usually go beyond TOC.

Since their makeover a couple months again, it seems like
all the covers have been guys - mostly young and posed, not
running. And this one looked like a slouch. It looks like
they're targetting hs age? I don't usually bother with
anything except the forums, but after there was such a
ruckus about the changes I occasionally look at their home
page to see what the cover looks like now.

My latest Ultrarunning came today (haven't had chance to
read it yet) and PP and SIB yesterday, so no need to
worry about RW.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope