This is not about fat shaming. Help me understand how featuring a morbidly obese postpartum non-athlete in Sports Illustrated makes any sense from a business standpoint. What exactly are they marketing, and more importantly, to whom?
It feels more than a little self congratulatory, but maybe I’m missing something.
“She’s not a regular mom, she’s a cool mom and she’s got lots to celebrate this week! 💕 Hunter McGrady is back gracing the pages of SI Swimsuit 2022 but this time, with a whole new level of confidence that we couldn’t be more proud of.”
This doesn’t bother me. But I had the following thoughts.
Sports Illustrated still puts out a swimsuit issue? (I subscribed to the magazine back in the 1970’s-80’s. A highlight of the week was when it showed up in my mailbox.)
It used to be sort of fun to read the letters to the editor in the weeks following the swimsuit issue. “I have two young children, and I won’t subject them to this sort of filth. I’m cancelling my subscription immediately!”
I thought the swimsuit issue came out earlier in the calendar year? Sort of a ray of light in the dark days of late winter.
It doesn’t really bother me, I just can’t make much sense of it.
I mean, I am somewhat bothered by normalizing obesity for all the obvious reasons, but I just don’t get who they think this appeals to, given the target market of the magazine, and this issue in particular.
The swimsuit edition was a genius marketing tool, using sex to sell copies. That, I get, from a marketing perspective. Broadening the pool of models to include some plus size models also makes sense, but not without some level of risk. Those models were classically beautiful, curvy in the right places, but heavier. I would imagine the calculation was that they can flex their social responsibility credentials with their inclusion without their flagship edition taking a big hit.
Now, they’re selling the image of a morbidly obese postpartum body, and touting her “confidence,” which is clearly code for not being ashamed of showing a body most women would not want to showcase.
A lifestyle magazine with a 18-35 female demographic target audience, sure, I get it.
I wonder if they are doing it because more articles are written about the models who are obese, old, have caesarian scars etc… versus the typical models.
Probably a last ditch effort to stay relevant at a time when someone can do a google search for hot women in bikinis and have instant gratification.
It doesn’t really bother me, I just can’t make much sense of it.
I mean, I am somewhat bothered by normalizing obesity for all the obvious reasons, but I just don’t get who they think this appeals to, given the target market of the magazine, and this issue in particular.
The swimsuit edition was a genius marketing tool, using sex to sell copies. That, I get, from a marketing perspective. Broadening the pool of models to include some plus size models also makes sense, but not without some level of risk. Those models were classically beautiful, curvy in the right places, but heavier. I would imagine the calculation was that they can flex their social responsibility credentials with their inclusion without their flagship edition taking a big hit.
Now, they’re selling the image of a morbidly obese postpartum body, and touting her “confidence,” which is clearly code for not being ashamed of showing a body most women would not want to showcase.
A lifestyle magazine with a 18-35 female demographic target audience, sure, I get it.
Didn’t they include a male gay swimsuit model in their swimsuit issue a couple years ago or something? Same questions and points came up and were discussed here on this forum. Who is their target audience by doing that vs just virtue signaling, etc…
There was a pretty big thread in the LR on it if I recall.
I would think that SI is trying to reach a broader audience.
Last fall I was in search of a good strength training program for middle-aged female triathletes (50+). In my search I looked at different Instagram accounts of certain programs. I noticed there was quite a bit of “health shaming” and complaining by women who didn’t like seeing very fit women in the photographs promoting these strength programs. They felt it was unrealistic. But I disagree. If you spend most of your adult life racing and training for different types of endurance sports or if you focus on fitness and exercise, most likely you will look pretty strong and fit (yes there are outliers).
You can’t please everyone, especially in 2022. Maybe the solution is to showcase all kinds of body types.
Even so, I’m guess “confidence†wasn’t used as a selling point, and I’ll also hazard a guess that those men weren’t morbidly obese. I could be wrong.
The Venn diagram overlap just isn’t obvious to me here.
With you on the many medical reasons not to promote obesity.
As far as the title goes, how is this any different than “morbidly under-nourished, survives on coffee and cigarettes, non-athlete in SI….� Are any of the models athletes, besides the obvious athlete edition?
Yeah, I don’t get it. I suspect their attempts to appeal to everyone comes at the expense of actual sales, but it may be a dying product anyway in today’s media universe.
I’m not an aficionado or historian of the swimsuit addition, but most of the models I recall generally seemed fit and healthy, and the biggest criticism I can think of is that they had unattainable physics, not that they were Kate Moss level malnourished.
Call me crazy but I think it’s reasonable to expect a magazine like sports illustrated to promote a fit athletic healthy body type. Putting aside the politically correct bullshit, that is the most socially responsible position, in my opinion.
*Sports Illustrated *is still being published? Or is this online?
Does anyone consume hard-copy magazines anymore? Why get something on paper that’s only going to end up in the recycling bin two weeks later?
I know there was a time when SI, Rolling Stone, and *MAD Magazine *were worth far more than the paper they were printed on; when they had top quality writers, artists and editors
Help me understand how featuring a morbidly obese postpartum non-athlete in Sports Illustrated makes any sense from a business standpoint. What exactly are they marketing, and more importantly, to whom?
"She’s not a regular mom, she’s a cool mom and she’s got lots to celebrate this week!
They are marketing to America. I don’t know if it will be a successful marketing campaign, but the business standpoint argument is easy to see. Identify a target audience, and sell them a product that makes them feel like they are desirable.
They are not trying to create a market or persuade people to change themselves to become part of a market. They have identified a pre-existing market and are trying to find a way to make their product relevant to it.
Do you think those men buy that edition to see women who look like their wives?
I don’t think men buy that edition anymore. Would you? (with any type of pictures)
Which may be the root of the answer to your question. Searching around for relevance in an age where you can get a billion pictures of women in swimsuits or less for free.
