Discussion
  • Read More
    Andrew DaisukeKate Dries
    6/15/15 2:49pm

    I completely read this as "Joan Smells", and I was like, well, the people at Lucky are upset with Joan, and are out of ideas as to get her to not smell.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XofAndrew Daisuke
      6/15/15 2:51pm

      I’m tired of all this Joan shaming.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      randilynXof
      6/15/15 2:58pm

      Oh cry me a rivers.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    olivianewtonjohnKate Dries
    6/15/15 3:05pm

    Lucky never seemed to find its footing. Ever since it came out, it was always revamping and changing up it’s editorial strategy. Hiring Eva was a last-ditch effort to bank on her social media reach, but, of course, she left when it was clear that Lucky was no longer to have an editorial POV, and instead juts be a portal for online shopping...which is exactly what one would suspect would be the endgame for a “magazine about shopping.”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      almaneolivianewtonjohn
      6/15/15 3:16pm

      I was a longtime sbscriber dating back to 2001, and thought that the 2002-2007 yrs were awesome. Kim France and Andrea Linnett were really running the place and it showed. I could spot an AL directed spread from a mile away and loved her style. After they left, the mag just got thinner and thinner, and not just from less ads. I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I saved my old copies from 2000-2007 and still flip through them occasionally. They really shaped my opinions about throwing an outfit together.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      completelytotallyforgotmysigninalmane
      6/15/15 3:27pm

      Somewhere I have a file of all the clippings that I kept from those years of Lucky. And there were things you could actually afford, too.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    tealstarKate Dries
    6/15/15 3:01pm

    They seem to have tried to save the print version at some point by giving out free subscriptions as promos in hopes that people would pay to subscribe. I’m assuming that is why it gets sent to me. I just wish I would get notified when I’m getting a magazine subscription when I buy something else online. Sometimes they tell you at checkout and sometimes they don’t. I’m also getting Teen Vogue, which is just too young for me.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      titania126tealstar
      6/15/15 3:28pm

      No one cares about subscription income. You’re getting it because they can (theoretically) sell millions of dollars worth of advertising against their circulation and once you’re receiving the magazine, you’re included in that number, whether you paid for it or not. Your $15 a year doesn’t matter compared to the $4mil from Estee Lauder. It’s obviously not a *great* sign when a magazine doesn’t have a robust subscriber base, but it always amazes me that people can’t figure out why they’re receiving magazines for free. Only the subscription marketing team cares if you subscribe. Everyone who makes the big money cares that you fit a particular demographic and that’s it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      tealstartitania126
      6/15/15 3:52pm

      Ok but Teen Vogue and Seventeen might be disappointed though, I’m far removed from that demographic. I may still get carded but I don’t give a damn about creepy underage boy groups.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    smallgoodthingKate Dries
    6/15/15 3:44pm

    When it debuted, I read Lucky religiously, bought the books, etc., until the team that founded the mag left and so did I. A couple of years ago, I picked up a copy and found it strange that a mag that skewed younger in style featured pretty much only ridiculously, prohibitively expensive products. Back it the day, it was a better mix of high and low, which makes more sense for a younger audience that is less likely to have piles of money to spend on fashion/beauty. Perhaps they tried to take it too editorial without attracting an audience that aligned with their vision.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      catnapssmallgoodthing
      6/15/15 4:17pm

      That’s interesting, because the last time I flipped through, maybe in the last year, I was turned off by how downmarket everything featured was. It seemed to be mostly mall brands.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      smallgoodthingcatnaps
      6/15/15 4:23pm

      That’s interesting. Perhaps they overcorrected in one of their shifts in leadership? I can see how featuring mostly mall brands wouldn’t do them any favors, either. I wonder how long it’s been since they’ve had leadership that could hit the aspirational sweet spot.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    skreedledeedledeeeKate Dries
    6/15/15 2:50pm

    Heh. Not so lucky then, eh?

    Okay I’m leaving I apologise.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      NomNom83skreedledeedledeee
      6/15/15 3:12pm

      Obligatory:

      GIF
      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      HerRoyalRednessskreedledeedledeee
      6/15/15 11:36pm

      And now I have Lucky by Britney Spears playing in my head.

      GIF
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    kitteneyeKate Dries
    6/15/15 3:17pm

    I think that their editor before Chen really killed them. The redesign they did under her was awful. Truly terrible. You could barely distinguish the editorial content from the ads. (I think after this happened was actually right around when Anna Wintour got promoted at Conde to give corporate more creative control over the individual books.)

    Pretty sad, since there is definitely a space there for a mid-level fashion magazine. Unfortunately, print publishing these days leaves no room for mistakes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      catnapskitteneye
      6/15/15 3:22pm

      I remember that. It was awful.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Marlene FreaktrickKate Dries
    6/15/15 3:44pm

    we had a buyer from Lucky come to my school as a speaker a few months ago. She said they were shutting down the magazine and going forward as a shopping and editorial website no plans to do any print so this isn’t really a surprise to me.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Bears for PresidentKate Dries
      6/15/15 2:51pm

      I mean, yeah. Standards are clearly falling over there and I guess they made their first cuts in the copy editing department. They completely forgot the C in in the magazine’s title.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Feminist KittenjoyKate Dries
        6/15/15 3:09pm

        the brand would spin-off into its own shopping/magazine website with some sort of print presence

        If this is indeed the plan, I hope it turns out better than Domino. I was a diehard subscriber of the magazine but hate the new incarnation. :/

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          DelectablyChicKate Dries
          6/15/15 4:31pm

          I’m not surprised, since they didn’t even publish one for June (?) or July. And it’s already June 15.

          Reply
          <