Magazines Search for a New Type of Cover Girl

Unsurprisingly, A-list Hollywood actresses– you know the type: outrageous amounts of money, ridiculously high heels, and sculpted husbands– are not the most relatable to the everyday female. This may seem like obvious news but there are some resounding effects.

Jess Cagle, managing editor of Entertainment Weekly, puts it this way:

“…[M]ovie stars are less revered than they used to be, and also audiences have shifted their allegiance in large part to television.”

Due to this shift in “allegiance” so to speak, editors have adjusted their magazine covers to satisfy the readers. For example, Glamour’s covers were 50% populated with film stars, but when the magazine realized that their edition featuring Lauren Conrad– a reality TV star– was the best selling issue in 2012, they opted to make film stars the minority of cover girls.

Other leading ladies who have made sales mile markers are Beyonce and Lady Gaga, showing that musicians pack a lot of punch as well. The growth of social media has also aided in the relability of some stars, especially those who tweet, or are patrons of Instagram and Vine, for example. Other possible reasons for the attachment to reality stars is the ongoing, weekly relationship  developed through regular programming, versus the roughly two hour relationship created during movies. The personal investment is much more temporary with movies than with television.

Another speculation is that most movies (as of late), appeal to men, and women make up the majority of magazine buyers, so  a gap is created where women do not relate to male movie stars.