The Free Distribution Model that Thrived: STYLIST Magazine
Differing from my first posts, this topic is about a form of media that conforms to our capitalist society in order to thrive, rather than one that maintains it. Stylist Magazine is a perfect example of how media shapes its content to benefit itself in the free market system.
STYLIST Magazine emerged from ShortList Media in 2009, entering the market amongst already established magazines such as Grazia and Vogue. While they all maintained the highest of standards for a female viewership, Stylist was unique by aspiring to establish this same sense of value, but for free.
After the recession in 2008, the advertising industry was at a low. Much to a surprise, the magazine took off despite their reliance on advertising revenue – and thanks to Stylist’s free distribution model. The Magazine’s idea was to target young to middle-aged women on their way to work, by distributing their magazine around the tube. This cunning idea proved its worth. By determining their audience by location, age and gender, they were able to specially tailor their content to them, which I imagine created some loyal viewers.
But, in light of the pandemic, the magazine has been forced to move online – a world where advertising is less welcomed, but still exists. Their readers no longer travel to work, nor feel comfortable touching shared physical artefacts, such as a magazine on the tube. To compensate for this, they made digital issues of their magazine under a subscription model.
In the original business model, Stylist took advantage of knowing their audience. Based on what seems to be a stereotype of professional women and a commercialisation of that culture – they focused their content towards fashion, beauty, and lifestyle.
As a new reader, I can’t definitively say how the content has changed since moving digitally – but they do have an entire section that gives tips for working from home, as well as a subscription only ‘training club’ for at home workouts. So, I can make a guess.
This change in content re-establishes their audience as female professionals, whom they now predict are confined to working and exercising in their living rooms. It also reflects the magazine’s loss of the free distribution model by promoting their new subscription based model which gives access to up to date, relevant, content.
Stylist also appear to have adopted popular feminism trends, which I suspect is a finance move. By following new and important trends such as feminism, they help create a more relatable identity for themselves which helps increase the subscribers to their new system. Two notable sections feature as ‘PEOPLE – The latest from our favourite female figures and activists, as well as celebrity & entertainment news’ and ‘STRONG WOMEN’.
“Yes, women are more likely to say sorry – but it’s a strength, not a weakness”
– Megan Murray – Stylist Magazine
An issue that comes from the relationship between financing and content is that the content risks commercialising culture and feminism for the sake of subscribers, or readers of the free access. As a media platform, they are responsible to be aware of these matters.
These examples of feminism from the magazine empower women (their audience), but can also give women a false sense of supporting the movement through supporting the magazine. This is more like what the magazine wants you to feel. But this isn’t the case. Instead, it promotes power through consumption, which ultimately leads us back to neoliberal principles and capitalist values.
A more direct example where Stylist promotes consumerism is this article on how face masks help sleep, where they review the products, place an image of them, the price, and a ‘buy now’ button. Even I admit to occasionally falling for these setups.
As Banet Weiser explains, advertising has harnessed feminism and empowerment on marketing tactics. Stylist has succeeded in creating greater visibility through the commodification of feminism and culture, aiding the business’s finances in its new model.