Who knows .... my return may well be imminent. Hope everyone is well. Christina ;-) x
Who knows .... my return may well be imminent. Hope everyone is well. Christina ;-) x
Member since:03.10.2003
Reviews:126
Members who trust:101
It’s a chilly, grey, dull day in dreary London today. As my husband popped out to pick up a paper I asked him to buy a magazine, with the criteria “any one will do” that I don’t currently have. So he had quite a few to choose from! He came back with “REAL“.
When this was first published a few years ago, it was trying to compete with the high quality glossies and was printed as such. It’s published by H Bauer Publishing and was it’s first attempt at venturing into the upmarket women’s market. It hasn’t performed well in this market place and in the middle of August this year, Bauer Publishing sold the titled to Essential Publishing, amid rumours that the title would close. Whether Essential Publishing can ensure the magazine’s success where Bauer has failed remains to be seen.
There are a couple of unique factors about “REAL”. Firstly, it’s a fortnightly publication (current cover price £1.50), and secondly it’s marketed to a fairly broad age range. My research suggests that it’s aimed at 25-40 year olds, but it could be argued that it has a wider appeal, and you could possibly find something in here to suit all women from ages 20 through to 60.
For some reason in “REAL” (probably due to the number of inset pictures),
you get two pages of Contents Listings (3&4). Contents are broken down into “Trends” (yup, just another word for Fashion!), “Features”, “Fashion” (yup, why don’t they put this with Trends?), “Health & Beauty”, “Food & Interiors” and “Regulars”. I know lots of magazines index their publications like this, but it really does irk me. It’s not as if I look at the Contents page and think “oh yeah, I want to read an article about Health & Beauty!” I’d much rather they didn’t bother.
I must admit it’s been a little while since I read this; I had thought it went downhill after its initial launch, and I haven’t read anything in this issue to convince me otherwise. In the early days of “REAL”, it did have a slightly alternative feel to it and seemed to cover much more interesting topics. For example, the publication used to handle issues like prostitution and drugs use with sensitivity and a non-judgemental attitude. Those days are gone. As I flicked through this fortnight’s offering, I truly felt that “REAL” had lost its individuality and the unique niche it had filled in the women’s glossies market.
The offerings are staple fodder from a woman’s title. Let’s see. We have articles about fashion and beauty - why it’s “cool to be brunette this year”. I can breathe a sigh of relief then! Quite frankly, I’m not interested; I’m past caring! There’s criticism of celebrity style and information on “who should sack their stylist”. This, I can get from Heat thanks. And then there’s a feature on “Poor little rich girls”, “Can being an It girl really be that bad”? Do we really care? Nope. I don’t. Sorry, but I’ve got real life issues of my own to worry about without being concerned about whether someone like Tara Palmer-Tompkinson has had a raw deal. Again, this kind of article I’d expect to find in Cosmopolitan. Am I being too harsh? Maybe I am, but this comes across as being one very confused magazine. It seems to be trying to hard, not sure which other publications are its competitors.
OK, so there is a positive side. The title does a series of “Special Reports” that cover a wide range of topics. Even I have to admit that the quality of journalism here is top notch.
*There’s a diet article about “Can the new diet pills live up to the hype?” Here, we get an analysis of appetite suppressants, fat burners and metabolism boosters that is quite useful, and the articles always try to be fairly balanced.
*We also have “The Sinister World of Skin Bleaching”, an in depth look t the practice of “skin-lightening”, the illegal substances used to do so and why some of these products have been banned in Britain.
*Another title is “Meet the real-life Clarice Starling*, where REAL talks to a woman that’s spent a lifetime interviewing the world’s most notorious serial killers.
It’s articles like these that used to make REAL a force to be reckoned with. Previously, every issue was jam packed with features like these . However, I guess that this unique selling point (USP) hasn’t been enough and didn’t hold wide enough appeal. So much so, that REAL is now somewhere between She and Woman’s Own and that’s a pretty weird position to be in.
REAL’s style directory is also fair. New look and Etam can be featured on the same page as French Connection and River Island. They make a concentrated effort to provide a balance between economy and flair, realising that their pages will be read by women on a budget, as well as those with a bit of extra cash to spare on treating themselves.
As is normal from a publication of this kind, full page colour advertising is quite heavily featured. REAL does well in maintaining a balance. In this issue 20 pages out of 120 were full page advertising, which seemed a little heavy to me, but not nearly as heavy as a publication like Glamour or Cosmopolitan.
MY VERDICT?
I guess because I used to REALLY like this magazine, I’ve maybe been a little harsh. But it’s a harshness borne out of disappointment. I do wonder if the publication may have been more successful had it stuck to its grass roots and not tried so hard to compete with the other upmarket glossies out there? However, it’s a competitive world we live in, and us little old consumers are driven by advertising and marketing. REAL’s initial content clearly wasn’t a successful enough formula to let it continue in that way ad infinitum.
You know, it’s OK really. If you want to read articles about “REAL” women that are not covered by the ordinary run of the mill glossies, yet are too serious to make it into the realms of Woman’s Own, That’s Life or Take a Break, this could be just the magazine for you.
At £1.50 a fortnight, it represents reasonable value too.
I don't often buy magazines, but found your review very good. Julie xx
missie123 09.09.2004 18:26
Doesnt sound too bad - i hate the magazines that are over £3 a go. I breathed a sigh of relief when I discovered it was cool to be a brunette this year. As if! Thanks! x
Aug 29th, 2004
exceptional by (4%):
very helpful by (94%):
helpful by (2%):
