Lucky

this mag should be free, for all the advertisements put in it!

I picked this up, hoping to get more in touch with what's 'in' right now, where to get it, and for what price. YOU'D THINK a mag about shopping would help with that.

Well, it might, if you're a millionaire size 0 who has no taste.

I mean, there wasn't ONE outfit featured that didn't have at least once of the pieces in the three figures category.

Oh, but they found the perfect leather jacket! It's only $1,395. SHUT UP. I'm ordering RIGHT NOW. Oh wait, but can I afford that AND the leather and wool jacket featured here too, that's a bargain for $2k? If you buy something to wear, and have to put a 'k' at the end of your price, what the hell is wrong with you??? Hurting for things to buy, huh? Damn! People go on trans-continental vacations for that amount!

What really pissed me off was the article about the UNRELEASED Origins Gingzing mascara. No, it's not out. No, you can't even try it. But some lady at this magazine went to a meeting with some other lady and in between being hypnotized by her RINGS she kept noticing her lashes! Oh, it's our new mascara! Isn't it marvelous, darling? *Flicks scarf made of Dalmatian fur out of way*

Gullible read...err, LUCKY readers can order it for $18 with free shipping using the special code! Whoa! I've always wanted to order an expensive mascara, sight unseen and untried, because some random lady at a mag. obviously got paid to endorse it! I can't get my credit card out fast enough!

Oh wait, here it is, right where I left it after spending $3K on two jackets!

I bought the first issue of lucky when it came out and was a subscriber for years. But I let it lapse awhile ago, because I was no longer interested.

The magazine used to be a little more broadly focused... they had great home decor articles, for example, including DIY tips at times. But Lucky's publishers came out with another magazine for home decor, so a lot of those articles stopped.

The "shopping tours" of various cities seem to be getting further and further away as the recession deepens, it would be nice to have them focus on more cities that were lesser known for fashion, to find more undiscovered gems.

For me, though, the worst thing was that when the magazine started out, they focused on showcasing different types of style, and the look of the items in the magazine narrowed and got more and more mainstream and boring over time. Since almost everyone who dresses well has a little bit of a different, signature style... This bothers me a lot.

YMMV, though. I was very into this magazine as a teen, but it seemed less and less relevant to my life and style as I grew up. My idea of what makes a wonderful fashion magazine may simply have changed a lot. Lucky is still an okay fashion/eye candy mag, but it feels more and more like it's lacking the kind of edge it used to have. It seems to be more and more like other fashion mags every day, And I'd like to see a different approach.

Buy Lucky Now

'LUCKY" IS IN NEED OF A SANDWICH ...... in other words, it's getting thinner and thinner and isn't looking too healthy these days. In fact, it's been kind of a junky for a while now.

I keep up with magazine and publication news, and for a couple years or so 'Lucky' has been the sadder part of the news. Its numbers have been going down, and this current September 2012 issue is one of the thinnest September issues I've seen in a really long time. This isn't for nothing, thoughI've subscribed for about four years and I've got to say, 'Lucky' is really no longer worth subscribing to. Come December, I think I'm done.

Ever since they switched up their editor-in-chief (used to be Kim France), things just haven't been as strong for the magazine. Don't get me wrongI'm a die-hard, so-badly-wish-I-lived-in-NYC trendy hipster fashion slave. I love it all and I read almost all fashion publications on a monthly basis. But I really feel like the editors at 'Lucky' think its readers are robotic numbskulls. It's become almost nothing more than a glorified catalog, and there's barely any meaty content now. I understand that instant gratification is the name of the game these days in fashion publications, and that it's kind of a genius strategy to tell your readers exactly what to buy (with the item styled in a cute editorial shoot on the same page!). 'People StyleWatch' employs a similar technique. But I feel 'Lucky' has pigeonholed itself into catering to one specific kind of readersomeone who WORKS IN FASHION, LIKE THEMSELVES.

It's like the folks at 'Lucky' are working to create a publication simply for people EXACTLY like themselves! Same looks, same sense of taste and style, SAME PAYCHECK, same type of job, same type of living conditions (hip, urban), etc. Any time they do a feature on a 'Lucky girl' or some 'real person', they always seem to work in fashion, advertising, or are the owner of some fabulous salon. Oh, or perhaps they're a recording artist showing this year at Coachella, or they're the star of a film out this month. They always seem to live either in New York or Los Angeles. There are no teachers, no office workers, no folks from the mid-West, no one that just knows how to shop and dress damn well and WITHOUT the million-dollar budget or high-profile career. And AGAIN, don't get me wrongI am a fashion fanatic. However, my budget is, well, budget-ish. I can't identify with the 'Lucky' reader anymore because she doesn't seem to have a budget and she doesn't seem to be able to say "No" to advertising. I'm sure I could still subscribe to 'Lucky' for another year and suck the juice out of it, but I am just at the point where I feel insulted doing so. EVERY SINGLE PAGE is listed with attractively-styled items and their given prices, along with a sometimes-ludicrous description of each. Example"Bonjour, Cleveland! Rose-gold jeans feel so French rocker." I mean, ok. I get it, I like to write too. But you just feel like they're trying SO HARD to convince you to just BUY. Not to be inspired, but to buy. And they will shamelessly pitch that item to you, no matter what the price tag may be (frequently upwards of $500 ... BUT YOU'LL LOVE IT FOREVER!!!!).

While some may argue that 'Lucky' is trying to provide fashion inspiration, let's face itthe point of 'Lucky' is to inspire SPENDING, and almost nothing more. Each month, I at least find myself at the drugstore buying some new body wash they recommend in each new issue, and I just don't need that right now. I understand that 'People StyleWatch' has the same thing going but I feel they do a much better job of catering to lesser incomes and helping you restyle your own wardrobe. They have their niche with their specific focus on celebrities, and everyone can name a celebrity whose style they like. 'Lucky' just leaves you feeling overwhelmed and as if you need to be one of the "cool girls" in order to relate. Your evidence of this problem lies in the fact that their issues have been growing increasingly thinner; they're losing readers and they're losing ad pages.

If you're not Olivia Palermo, pick something else to subscribe to rather than 'Lucky'. You'll enjoy it more in the long-run.

p.s. I do like their "City Guide" feature, with a shopping guide to a different major city each month. I tear all those out and keep 'em. And one extra star for Jean Godfrey-June, their beauty editor.

Read Best Reviews of Lucky Here

This magazine is geared soley toward a very specific readership--a young, model-esque, affluent woman living in a major cosmopolitan city. I'd venture to guess that most of the products, clothing, and accessories featured will also be significantly out of the price range of most readers (not unusual to see 3 to even 4 figures per item). As an inspiration that you can use to build your own outfits, I also think what they offer is impractical. I'm not a particularly conservative dresser and have an average body, but I find the outfits they put together overly trendy (as in, it's got a shelf life of about 2 weeks or none at all), and caters to a super skinny and tall body type.

The tone of the writing throughout is also really grating. There are a lot of wannabe cutesy, dash heavy descriptions like "over-the-top-ness," "less-boob-featuring," and "as in still-wet-from-the-ocean," as well as the over-the-top-ness of descriptions like "astronomically hip." Nobody is getting this magazine for the writing, but this type of ad copy invades even the shortest product descriptions. It also has a tone of some sort of exclusive sorority, with one editor referring to another in glowing terms and even their end page is a fashion tribute to a different staff member's mother every month. It leaves me with a diabolically insane case of rolling-eye-tis.

It's basically much a pretty picture book for women to drool over, which is fine. That's why I get it; it's a diversion during a long commute when my brain is fried from work and, as you'd expect from a magazine devoted to shopping, I do often find some intriguing new product I want to try. But what finally got my rating down to a single star is that once my subscription started, the company used it as a means to clear out their backstock. It is well into July now and I've gotten the last 2 issues, both of which a regular reader and potential subscriber would already have. The next issue is already on newsstands, but I'm getting two-month-old stuff. What gives? That means 1/6 of your subscription is redundant and useless. The subscription is cheap enough that I won't bother canceling it at this point (Just when I'm about to actually get a current issue? That would be crazy!), but I won't continue to support a magazine that has so little respect for its customers.

Want Lucky Discount?

I subscribed to this magazine after having purchased, and really enjoyed, one issue at the newstand. I found I enjoyed the magazine a little less with each passing issue. While it's true that each issue is filled with new clothes and products, it gets sort of monotonous in its relentless search for the next big thing. This is especially so when that search overcomes all reason and leads to the writers praising hideously unflattering "new looks" and really strange and impractical styling.

Although the content of the magazine was inconsistent, sometimes interesting, often extended shopping guides to cities I have no plans to visit, my main issue is with the customer service I received from Conde Nast. When I subscribed, I specifically indicated that my personal information should not be sold/shared with anyone else. In contravention of Canadian privacy laws, Conde Nast ignored this request, and i started receiving my first junk mail in many years. When I called to cancel these catalogs etc. several of the advertisers confirmed through their records that they had bought my info from Conde Nast.

The realization that they were selling my info, and more recently the notification that they will be auto-renewing my subscription with an over 200% increase in cost, required my calling their customer service line. The line is mostly a circuituous maze of voice-activated commands, and makes it very difficult to speak with someone directly or tell if the line has adequately dealt with your request. I believe that I have cancelled my subscription, but the recording I got to interact with was unclear, and then the line disconnected. I plan to call back to confirm, but am leaving it for a day when I have enough patience and spare time to deal with the automated line again.

Save 58% Off