CARGO OVERBOARD!?!?!?!
Who Cries for Cargo?
The death of the men's shopping magazine.
By Michael Agger
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006, at 12:28 PM ET
Slat.ecom
Somewhere in America, men are sad. Cargo, the magazine that told them what custom jeans to buy and where to find the right shaving lotion, is shutting down. It's the latest men's shopping magazine to fold, preceded by the more upscale Vitals and the more tech-focused Sync. Cargo's May issue will be its last, and then, once again, men will be alone, alone on a wide wide sea of gadgets, wheels, and fashion. The pain is still raw, and the question lingers: Did the failure of Cargo lie in its conceit or in its execution?
Back in March of 2004, the answer seemed obvious. Brilliant conceit, brilliant execution. That month, 300,000 ad-laden copies of the premiere issue of Cargo arrived at newsstands, and Condé Nast, the publisher, expected nothing but the best from its bright boy. The previous June, the "metrosexual" (defined as a straight urban male who cared about his appearance and who wasn't afraid of letting others know it) had made his debut in the New York Times "Style" section and graduated into mainstream circulation. Men, it appeared, were becoming the new women. Cargo was designed with same DNA as Lucky, the very successful female shopping magazine. With natural slots for fashion, car, and beauty advertisers, Cargo seemed likely to be a layup.
But even from the start, there was a certain fatal queasiness about the magazine's audience.
Here's the original publisher, Alan Katz, discussing the first issue: "It's not for any stereotypical man or sexual orientation. After all, the Apple iPod doesn't care who buys it." Huh? The iPod may not care (it's the rare unisex tech device), but it's pointless to suggest that clothes, cars, and beauty products do not carry connotations with them. For a guy, the mere fact of paying attention to your appearance sends a message. As a fashion-forward friend once told me: Most men care about how they look, but only two groups of men will consistently admit to caring about how they look, namely gay men and African-Americans. (As Charlie Bucket said, "Here we go again." What does this mean, "admit to caring about how they look?" That every straight man, when asked, "Do you care about how you look?" responds by saying, "No - I don't care how I look, in fact, I like looking like shit!" What scientific evidence exists that only black and gay men - whom this fashion-forward friend would probably state in the same breath are also virulently homophobic - admit to caring about how they look? None, of course. Only anecdotal evidence does. But, of course, it can never, ever, ever be forgotten that some people's anecdotal evidence counts for much more than other's. Especially when the weightier evidence is only obtained as a result of flawed testing procedures, if you catch my drift).
Cargo would naturally appeal to the younger members of these two demographics, but it also needed these alleged metrosexuals to get on board (for the record, I have purchased this magazine about six times, because it constitutes good science fiction to me. The magazine features incredibly expensive gadgets and gizmos that I can gawk and stare at in awe, while knowing I can never buy them. I suppose the fact that I like science fiction means I'm gay. Ditto the fact that I like electronics, whatever price. Ditto the fact that I don't like wasting money. By the way, did I mention that I'm not black? Therefore, since I bought the magazine, I must be gay. The last time I bought it, I purchased it from a black cashier who said that he purchases it also, because he liked looking at the electronics items for sale as well, as did his wife. I suppose the fact of his purchase, since he is black, made him doubly gay, and the fact that he was married made him doubly super secret gay, or something -DRL. The only reason a "straight" man - or SOME of then wouldn't buy this magazine - not that straight men didn't - is because he'd be THOUGHT of as being gay if he were caught reading it, not because READING it meant he was gay, or reading it MADE him gay. The reason why I stopped purchasing it, and the reason why I believe it and the other magazines flopped, is because out of the thousands of products featured in each issue, roughly 5% are below $100. It is a LUXURY magazine. If ONLY gay men were buying it, then according to our fashion expert, who no doubt believes that gay men are wealthier than straight men, shouldn't it have stayed in business longer?).
The first issue (DRL: must have some Crack-xim, if you get what I mean) been clocked in at over 200 pages. It was very flippable, graphics-intense, and dotted with those peppy paragraphs, ladled with adverbs, that define the "voice" of a service magazine. (Most readers, I suspect, would be stunned to know how much time is spent crafting those blurbs.) (Gay ones only, author of this article?)
There was a feature about how to fold a shirt sleeve, and a glossy layout of exotic cars. Women were asked to offer their thoughts on cologne. Cargo also sported the most noted feature of Lucky: the stickers that a reader could use to mark the products he or she wanted to buy. C'mon, who were they kidding? The stickers, more than anything else, underscore Cargo's problem. It believed in itself. (A hallmark of gay, or metrosexual, as opposed to straight, magazines. George Bush believes what he says, which is why he has the homophobe vote all locked up).
The smarter approach would have been to pretend not to care.
There were, however, men who took this seriously enough. Cargo's editor, Ariel Foxman (whom I worked with briefly at The New Yorker), spoke fondly of the grateful letters he received from readers (he was paid to act as though he took it seriously. His speaking fondly does not mean he actually took it seriously).
And, incredibly, the Cargo message boards do contain earnest exchanges about whether or not wearing a collared shirt over another collared shirt is attractive or stupid. (Answer: stupid.) But the Cargo nation of males 25-45 never materialized, and advertisers noticed. (The latest February figures show a 32 percent decline in ad pages when compared to the same period last year.)
The magazine, backing away from its pure conception as a "shopping guide," began to put celebrities on its cover, hoping for more pop at the newsstand. Sure, celebrities can move copies, but they can also instantly broadcast your lameness. Witness Nick Lachey on the April cover.
Cargo, unfortunately, never felt like a peer, it felt more like your "confused" friend. What's he going to look like today? The magazine veered wildly across the gay/straight divide, often in the same issue: one month asking 866 women to "Reveal the Secrets That Catch Their Eye" and also telling guys how to "Drink Your Way to a Hard Body." (Oh, I get it - half Vogue, half Maxim = all gay!) Other magazines like Details and Esquire, with longer articles and nonservice content, walk this line with more finesse. Cargo's tone was never right. (Meaning, of course, it was too gay and therefore, since the only people who would therefore buy it were therefore gay people, it went under. That makes sense).
Given more time, Cargo may have survived. If MySpace profiles are any indication, today's teenagers, under the influences of indie rock and hip-hop, look like a nation of metrosexuals in training. But I'm certain that most guys won't miss the title, because they already have a men's shopping magazine that they love. It has a circulation of over 4 million, and every month it provides chart-filled articles on cars, appliances, electronics, gardening, personal finance, and health & fitness. Men have been known to pass this magazine along to each other after reading it. They even save copies in boxes in the garage. The name of this august publication: Consumer Reports. (Consumer Reports is successful, by the way, not because it is "straight," "gay," "metrosexual," or anything else, but because it is recognized as THE magazine that provides comprehensive REVIEWS of products (as opposed to advertisements of them), and because the products it features are often products people can afford; even when the products are expensive products like cars, CR, unlike Cargo, writes reviews of cars in ALL price ranges, not those in just the higher-end ones).
The incessant tendency to label and stereotype people and thinking into oblivion is ruining this country. Yes, I am sensitive about the "gay" issue because I have been made fun of mercilessly for "being gay" (I don't think that there is anything wrong with being gay, but ANYONE would, after a point, resent being ridiculed being called ANYTHING about himself that wasn't true, simply because the human capacity for being annoyed is only finite. For example, suppose I was called a "Brandeis" graduate for weeks on end by someone. This comment would be no less or no more offensive than the gay comment - it would bother me because it isn't true and because the person who is saying it is acting as a human waste of space).
People today cannot have a discussion without labeling - without calling others "gay," "li-brul," "beer snobs," "fundies," you name it. It's not the being called gay that's the problem. It's the breakdown of fundamental human communication and the desire, from the point of the labeler, to go straight for the insult (while simultaneously and hypocritically claiming that he is not being insulting) that is the problem, combined with the fact that the labeler's definition of his label is such that he somehow always manages to carve out a personal exemption for one person only: himself. We live in a society of communication by declamation and slither, one that favors labels over exchange of ideas, one where people attempt to hurt others using hypocritical double-speak, and one in which those who happen to not like this are scorned. And, of course, the more those who do not like this protest - the more they state that the labeling is harmful and inaccurate, the more, of course, the labels "must be true." Of course, if those who protested remained silent, the labels would still "be true." If those who protested remained silent and stopped caring, the labels would again, still be true.
Which is why I've actually told people who've incorrectly labeled me as gay, a George Bush supporter, or what have you the following: you want to believe that, fine. You want to shout it to the world, fine. I just do not care. When someone's mind has turned into a desert, it's pretty hard to expect that offering that person a drink will do anything.
The death of the men's shopping magazine.
By Michael Agger
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006, at 12:28 PM ET
Slat.ecom
Somewhere in America, men are sad. Cargo, the magazine that told them what custom jeans to buy and where to find the right shaving lotion, is shutting down. It's the latest men's shopping magazine to fold, preceded by the more upscale Vitals and the more tech-focused Sync. Cargo's May issue will be its last, and then, once again, men will be alone, alone on a wide wide sea of gadgets, wheels, and fashion. The pain is still raw, and the question lingers: Did the failure of Cargo lie in its conceit or in its execution?
Back in March of 2004, the answer seemed obvious. Brilliant conceit, brilliant execution. That month, 300,000 ad-laden copies of the premiere issue of Cargo arrived at newsstands, and Condé Nast, the publisher, expected nothing but the best from its bright boy. The previous June, the "metrosexual" (defined as a straight urban male who cared about his appearance and who wasn't afraid of letting others know it) had made his debut in the New York Times "Style" section and graduated into mainstream circulation. Men, it appeared, were becoming the new women. Cargo was designed with same DNA as Lucky, the very successful female shopping magazine. With natural slots for fashion, car, and beauty advertisers, Cargo seemed likely to be a layup.
But even from the start, there was a certain fatal queasiness about the magazine's audience.
Here's the original publisher, Alan Katz, discussing the first issue: "It's not for any stereotypical man or sexual orientation. After all, the Apple iPod doesn't care who buys it." Huh? The iPod may not care (it's the rare unisex tech device), but it's pointless to suggest that clothes, cars, and beauty products do not carry connotations with them. For a guy, the mere fact of paying attention to your appearance sends a message. As a fashion-forward friend once told me: Most men care about how they look, but only two groups of men will consistently admit to caring about how they look, namely gay men and African-Americans. (As Charlie Bucket said, "Here we go again." What does this mean, "admit to caring about how they look?" That every straight man, when asked, "Do you care about how you look?" responds by saying, "No - I don't care how I look, in fact, I like looking like shit!" What scientific evidence exists that only black and gay men - whom this fashion-forward friend would probably state in the same breath are also virulently homophobic - admit to caring about how they look? None, of course. Only anecdotal evidence does. But, of course, it can never, ever, ever be forgotten that some people's anecdotal evidence counts for much more than other's. Especially when the weightier evidence is only obtained as a result of flawed testing procedures, if you catch my drift).
Cargo would naturally appeal to the younger members of these two demographics, but it also needed these alleged metrosexuals to get on board (for the record, I have purchased this magazine about six times, because it constitutes good science fiction to me. The magazine features incredibly expensive gadgets and gizmos that I can gawk and stare at in awe, while knowing I can never buy them. I suppose the fact that I like science fiction means I'm gay. Ditto the fact that I like electronics, whatever price. Ditto the fact that I don't like wasting money. By the way, did I mention that I'm not black? Therefore, since I bought the magazine, I must be gay. The last time I bought it, I purchased it from a black cashier who said that he purchases it also, because he liked looking at the electronics items for sale as well, as did his wife. I suppose the fact of his purchase, since he is black, made him doubly gay, and the fact that he was married made him doubly super secret gay, or something -DRL. The only reason a "straight" man - or SOME of then wouldn't buy this magazine - not that straight men didn't - is because he'd be THOUGHT of as being gay if he were caught reading it, not because READING it meant he was gay, or reading it MADE him gay. The reason why I stopped purchasing it, and the reason why I believe it and the other magazines flopped, is because out of the thousands of products featured in each issue, roughly 5% are below $100. It is a LUXURY magazine. If ONLY gay men were buying it, then according to our fashion expert, who no doubt believes that gay men are wealthier than straight men, shouldn't it have stayed in business longer?).
The first issue (DRL: must have some Crack-xim, if you get what I mean) been clocked in at over 200 pages. It was very flippable, graphics-intense, and dotted with those peppy paragraphs, ladled with adverbs, that define the "voice" of a service magazine. (Most readers, I suspect, would be stunned to know how much time is spent crafting those blurbs.) (Gay ones only, author of this article?)
There was a feature about how to fold a shirt sleeve, and a glossy layout of exotic cars. Women were asked to offer their thoughts on cologne. Cargo also sported the most noted feature of Lucky: the stickers that a reader could use to mark the products he or she wanted to buy. C'mon, who were they kidding? The stickers, more than anything else, underscore Cargo's problem. It believed in itself. (A hallmark of gay, or metrosexual, as opposed to straight, magazines. George Bush believes what he says, which is why he has the homophobe vote all locked up).
The smarter approach would have been to pretend not to care.
There were, however, men who took this seriously enough. Cargo's editor, Ariel Foxman (whom I worked with briefly at The New Yorker), spoke fondly of the grateful letters he received from readers (he was paid to act as though he took it seriously. His speaking fondly does not mean he actually took it seriously).
And, incredibly, the Cargo message boards do contain earnest exchanges about whether or not wearing a collared shirt over another collared shirt is attractive or stupid. (Answer: stupid.) But the Cargo nation of males 25-45 never materialized, and advertisers noticed. (The latest February figures show a 32 percent decline in ad pages when compared to the same period last year.)
The magazine, backing away from its pure conception as a "shopping guide," began to put celebrities on its cover, hoping for more pop at the newsstand. Sure, celebrities can move copies, but they can also instantly broadcast your lameness. Witness Nick Lachey on the April cover.
Cargo, unfortunately, never felt like a peer, it felt more like your "confused" friend. What's he going to look like today? The magazine veered wildly across the gay/straight divide, often in the same issue: one month asking 866 women to "Reveal the Secrets That Catch Their Eye" and also telling guys how to "Drink Your Way to a Hard Body." (Oh, I get it - half Vogue, half Maxim = all gay!) Other magazines like Details and Esquire, with longer articles and nonservice content, walk this line with more finesse. Cargo's tone was never right. (Meaning, of course, it was too gay and therefore, since the only people who would therefore buy it were therefore gay people, it went under. That makes sense).
Given more time, Cargo may have survived. If MySpace profiles are any indication, today's teenagers, under the influences of indie rock and hip-hop, look like a nation of metrosexuals in training. But I'm certain that most guys won't miss the title, because they already have a men's shopping magazine that they love. It has a circulation of over 4 million, and every month it provides chart-filled articles on cars, appliances, electronics, gardening, personal finance, and health & fitness. Men have been known to pass this magazine along to each other after reading it. They even save copies in boxes in the garage. The name of this august publication: Consumer Reports. (Consumer Reports is successful, by the way, not because it is "straight," "gay," "metrosexual," or anything else, but because it is recognized as THE magazine that provides comprehensive REVIEWS of products (as opposed to advertisements of them), and because the products it features are often products people can afford; even when the products are expensive products like cars, CR, unlike Cargo, writes reviews of cars in ALL price ranges, not those in just the higher-end ones).
The incessant tendency to label and stereotype people and thinking into oblivion is ruining this country. Yes, I am sensitive about the "gay" issue because I have been made fun of mercilessly for "being gay" (I don't think that there is anything wrong with being gay, but ANYONE would, after a point, resent being ridiculed being called ANYTHING about himself that wasn't true, simply because the human capacity for being annoyed is only finite. For example, suppose I was called a "Brandeis" graduate for weeks on end by someone. This comment would be no less or no more offensive than the gay comment - it would bother me because it isn't true and because the person who is saying it is acting as a human waste of space).
People today cannot have a discussion without labeling - without calling others "gay," "li-brul," "beer snobs," "fundies," you name it. It's not the being called gay that's the problem. It's the breakdown of fundamental human communication and the desire, from the point of the labeler, to go straight for the insult (while simultaneously and hypocritically claiming that he is not being insulting) that is the problem, combined with the fact that the labeler's definition of his label is such that he somehow always manages to carve out a personal exemption for one person only: himself. We live in a society of communication by declamation and slither, one that favors labels over exchange of ideas, one where people attempt to hurt others using hypocritical double-speak, and one in which those who happen to not like this are scorned. And, of course, the more those who do not like this protest - the more they state that the labeling is harmful and inaccurate, the more, of course, the labels "must be true." Of course, if those who protested remained silent, the labels would still "be true." If those who protested remained silent and stopped caring, the labels would again, still be true.
Which is why I've actually told people who've incorrectly labeled me as gay, a George Bush supporter, or what have you the following: you want to believe that, fine. You want to shout it to the world, fine. I just do not care. When someone's mind has turned into a desert, it's pretty hard to expect that offering that person a drink will do anything.
posted by EnterCenter at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home