Dear Editor of Vanity Fair,

An acquaintance recently wrote me a letter, correlating and tallying the content pages of your magazine against its advertisement pages in an effort to simulate for me the experience of your May 2016 issue.

(He didn’t know I have access to that particular issue and am able to suffer the reality he awoke me to all on my own.)

I must say, apart from his numbing commentary and attempt to be funny, he not so subtly addresses a very solid point-least of which was your Editor’s letter was the first solid piece of content in the magazine and was on page 50!-that we as the apparently dwindling reading masses have seemingly become inert to your-the magazine's anyway-practice of sacrificing content for ad revenue dollars. And I’m sure you aren’t the only guilty magazine, but… they aren’t who he examined.

I hate to admit it, but even before it was pointed out to me, I hadn't 'really' placed my finger on the overwhelming deluge of ads assaulting the content of your publication for print space. How could I when the flood of glamorous, full page pictorials ads in many cases 

could be misconstrued in my mind as captured by some of your very own photographers? But how bad is it when the ads then become the expected content of the magazine. You’re marketing department are geniuses in [their] own right for perpetrating such a brainwash. To which, I suppose I too was ultimately caught up in the glitz, glamour and shiny, lip glossed celebrities gracing said ad pages. Between all the ‘Kissable’ make up I’m not yet allowed to don and bejeweled watches I’ll never be able to pragmatically afford, who knows what pleasure chemicals your magazine was conjuring my brain to synthesize.

I personally shudder to think this was something I didn’t notice myself, it was under my nose the whole time. And I’m sure you been doing this for years; not that I can investigate, there isn’t a very generous back catalog of your magazine at my disposal to compare. But you should really consider reining in this practice, Cochise. I don’t know if it matters to you-I have to hope it does-but I think people will inevitably question the bitter taste of the subterfuge hidden amidst your perfume scented pages… even if they can't identify or place what it is they aren't able to brush or gargle away.

I hesitate to call Vanity Fair’s business practice into question, but this can't seriously be the association you 

want made when 'Vanity Fair' is mentioned can it? At this point it’s arguable the purpose of the magazine isn't just to serve as some half rate, parchment wasting, advertisement rag used to collect ad revenue while at the same time milking the consumer for the cover price until it ultimately goes completely digital.

Four pages of Jim Gaffigan selling a Mini Van?

For Chrysler's sake, man!

Pride is considered a sin you are guilty of when you are so magnanimous in your efforts you don't actually realize when you 'aren't' doing your best work anymore, right?

(I write that, full well realizing you may not be the party ultimately responsible)

Listen, I'm behind bars. I don't have access the internet. Magazines like yours are all a lot of us have. And I truly want your magazine to be excellent and succeed. I understand ads are a necessary evil, but can’t you do something more in keeping with quality and substance? Don't browbeat us with a blatant cash grab and pawn it off as worthy of bearing your magazine’s prestigious title. That move is more in line with what I expect from the 

masochistic decisions makers making up this prison's administration. People who would place the likes of knock off Mondrian prints on our cinderblock walls and claim aesthetic, when the last thing we want to look at are [paintings] that look like a colored in cinderblock wall…if that wasn’t clear.

(To which, it’s probably a good thing none of them know who Mondrian is; having never needed to take an art history class in pursuit of a Criminal Justice degree.)

To sum things up, if it wasn't obvious, I'm writing to voice my disappointment that so much of your printed medium has been tainted by such an overwhelming amount of advertisements and that the content that is pushed to the fringe of your margins has become so sparse and waned, I am left wanting and wondering just how few writers you actually employ or commission on the print side and what work of substance you are allowing them to do?

If the May issue serves as any example, it apparently isn’t many. As for substance… the focus on ‘Sister’s’ for instance… I’ve seen People magazine captions with more information about its subjects-captured in paparazzi photos- than the ‘featured’ individuals you ‘purportedly’ showcased. I can see how, maybe in terms of profit there isn’t a direct substance /sales correlation 

and perhaps the majority of the Vanity Fair’s print audience isn’t of the… ‘Fare’ to care about the quality or richness of the content, but if you believe that while situated in your high rise office, I have some cartons of seafront grown tobacco cigarettes to ‘cell’ you.

And with that… I suppose I’ve aired more than my piece, Sir.

My ultimate hope is this [is] something you understand, but aren’t ultimately responsible for or complicit in as an ‘editor.’ Should that be the case and the ad/content/material of substance battle is one you are forever entrenched fighting, my every hope and ounce of support stands behind you in your fight for every last page of magazine landscape you are able to reclaim.

Should the converse be true, I suppose I’ll just have to wait until the day I can wear that kissable lipstick and accept while certain things may not be capable of change, I am.

Bianca Farrah

">
CHANNILLO

Bianca's Vanity Fair response and Letter to the Editor (2)
Series Info | Table of Contents

Vanity Fair Letter to the Editor:

Dear Editor of Vanity Fair,

An acquaintance recently wrote me a letter, correlating and tallying the content pages of your magazine against its advertisement pages in an effort to simulate for me the experience of your May 2016 issue.

(He didn’t know I have access to that particular issue and am able to suffer the reality he awoke me to all on my own.)

I must say, apart from his numbing commentary and attempt to be funny, he not so subtly addresses a very solid point-least of which was your Editor’s letter was the first solid piece of content in the magazine and was on page 50!-that we as the apparently dwindling read...

Please subscribe to keep reading.

Table of Contents

Series Info