Originally Posted by MelanieW
I understand the references to Vogue and Elle in terms of aesthetic quality, but such comparisons are misleading, and do a disservice to Mode, because Mode was far superior.
What was important about Mode was how unlike those magazines it was, how different it was.
I agree completely. There are at least two other crucial differences between MODE and any other "women's magazine" that must be understood as being crucial to its success.
1. MODE was beautiful, rather than "edgy".
Just look (I mean really look) at the pictures in the interview. Most of the editorials in straight-size fashion magazines look like modern-art disasters. The models wear freakish makeup, ugly deconstructed clothing, and the lighting and photography are weird for weirdness's sake. Just awful. By contrast, MODE's shoots were pretty, feminine, and beautiful. They were like attractive Classical art rather than ugly modern art -- in style, as well as in the size of the models.
2. MODE was tasteful rather than vulgar, when discussing "women's issues."
Most magazines today have a repellent, raunchy, "Sex and the City" side. Their discussions of personal matters, especially intimacy, are clinical to the point of being vulgar, almost obscene. Mode avoided all of this. Its articles were very gentle in tone, very "G" rated -- and that's a good thing. A mother could feel comfortable having her daughter reading it. Sure, MODE's models were sexy, and it used the word "sexy" a lot, but it was a very demure, flirtatious, '50s kind of sexiness. In short, MODE had class, which is sorely lacking among women's magazines today.
Both of these factors are a major part of MODE's lasting appeal.