Thursday, November 8, 2007

I'm sorry to dwell on this, but I have no choice

I feel compelled to alert you to the sham that is Lucky Magazine. I was going about my business, checking Lucky's Cute Outfit of the Day (read more about it in this post), and saw this woman's itty bitty teeny tiny image.

It jumped out at me. Such a sassy pose! I thought for sure that she must have something fab going on with her dress or shoes. Maybe ankle boots? Colored pumps? I clicked on her eye-straining image and saw this:

Those shoes. Her toes are spilling out and she is touching the floor with them. Is she not?* It's not exactly a peep toe, but more of I-had-to-cut-off-the-top-of-my-orthopedic-heels-because-my-
corns-are-just-killing-me shoe. I can't even say anything nice about the color. And what's that white junk on the heel? Couldn't she get it cleaned up a bit for the photo shoot? I have two things to say about all of this.

1) These shoes are (allegedly) Chloe, and I'm sure that Laurie Trott, senior fashion editor, paid a mint for them. If these shoes were Easy Spirit (yeah, I linked it), she would have been fired on the spot. Or maybe she was fired on the spot, only to tear off one shoe and say "look! look! Chloe!" and her boss tried to make amends by giving her Cute Outfit of the Day. In this case, Lucky is just another brand whore turning a blind eye to an ugly shoe because it bears a big name.

2) In the event that the above scenario did not happen, we must assume that this was in fact the best outfit that Lucky employees had to offer on November 5. What, was everyone else at the office wearing pajama pants and Crocs? Oh, Lucky. You let us peek behind the curtain only to show us this? It's not worth it; you're ruining your credibility.

So listen up, Lucky. You and your "sister" Domino had better quit these shenanigans because I don't have time for this. I need to be concentrating on reality tv and finishing up that Halloween candy, not running two magazines from afar. I'd better start seeing your employees in some honest-to-goodness cute outfits or else you will lose my $10 a year. And then you'll be sorry. Very sorry indeed.

*Why are their images so grainy? Even on their own website? Why not large and sharp, Lucky? Hmmmm? Suspicious.

UPDATE: It is OVER between Lucky and me. Today I received my last issue of Lucky in the mail, with all of that "Renew now so you don't miss an issue!" urgency and hurry your ass up because the extra-special rate for preferred subscribers is $17.97 for 1 year. Wow, what a deal! Until you look in the magazine and every subscription card is $12/year. This is how you treat me? I have done nothing but try to help you. I'm done, Lucky. Done.


Forever Chic said...

Jesus...I wouldn't give those shoes to my worst enemy. Chloe or not, they should be burned immediately.

Brilliant Asylum said...

She should have one of those bars across her eyes--like in the back of Glamour.

SGM said...

Ha! Thank you for your validation, ladies. The scary thing is that Ms. Fashion Don't is in charge of style to the rest of us. No thanks.

SGM said...

I meant bringing style to the rest of us. Proofread much? :)

Fairfax said...

they look like 70's thrift shop clodhoppers. and they're brown.

Mrs. Blandings said...

This was the perfect follow up to the Jake Ryan post. I also love the Orange County - though I've never seen the show. I must confess, I cannot change the channel if I run across The Girls Next Door. Cannot.

Jamie Meares said...

found your blog - love it.

i totally agree on this. i said peace out to lucky last month. it got to the point where i was calling a friend in atlanta to go page by page calling out the god awful outfits. their mess got effing crazy. i quit.