3 ms·
They have brand value, but less than a few years ago, which is when they should have reinvented. At this point they're close to the "Toys-R-Us" level of brand v
by bdcravens 3y ago
They have brand value, but less than a few years ago, which is when they should have reinvented. At this point they're close to the "Toys-R-Us" level of brand value: remembered by the previous generation, and seen as a relic by the current.
- ghaff 3y agoIf a young person thinks of them at all, I imagine they're "that magazine that used to have a swimsuit edition."
- gs17 3y agoEven then, the reputation with the previous generation was dented by SI trying to make the swimsuit issue more progressive (that's the only time I ever heard a peep about it from older relatives, not that they bought it in the first place), which didn't make the current generation care more about it.
- pasttense01 3y agoWhat exactly do you mean by more progressive? [I've seen Sports Illustrated when I was young--but that was a long time ago.]
- gs17 3y agoIt's mostly more inclusion of trans, plus-size, disabled, older, etc models, a lot of getting press with "first X cover model". It's a nice thought, but a lot of their usual audience was likely turned off.
- bdcravens 3y agoAttempting to be more inclusive about the types of models they feature.