There is nothing new under the “cover”
May 11, 2007
As you can see from the pictures above, good cover design repeats itself every now and then. Esquire has a history of great cover designs and now you have the opportunity to see all the covers of Esquire from 1933 until today by clicking here. I was browsing these covers this morning and the image on the November 1989 cover looked so familiar in its design to a magazine that I’ve just bought. Not to issue rush judgments, I reached into my stack of magazines for this month, and lo and behold the cover design of this month’s GQ looked a lot like the Nov. 1989 Esquire cover. Judge for yourself. By the way, I have always used Esquire’s covers in my classes as a great example of great men’s magazine cover designs together with those of Vogue’s as an example of great women’s magazine cover designs.
Mr. Magazine 
Esquire and American Vogue have had completely horrible covers since the 80’s. GQ is offensively mediocre. I’d use them as examples of what NOT to do. The best covers in American magazines at the moment are the covers of Adbusters. As far as Women’s and Men’s fashion magazines – there are no good ones period, although Vman sometimes grapples with competence – at least with regards to design, style and photo editing.
There are a few unisex American fashion magazines, like Slash Magazine [www.slashmagazine.com] out of Georgia, that are very good, that have beautiful, uncluttered covers.
Ralph
I was talking about the golden olden days of Esquire and Vogue… plus in today’s marketplace covers are not meant to be designed for art sake but rather for marketing sake…if your magazine is not picked up on the newsstand or the coffee table you are dead in the water…magazines do not and will not survive by looks alone in today’s market place. The circulation of the magazines you’ve mentioned is very very limited.
Samir
I agree – Esquire had amazing covers – the best actually. Vogue also had some great ones for a time. I thought you meant today’s versions.
But as far as covers, I think it’s exactly the opposite of what you say – magazines will only survive if they are beautiful objects that create a desire response. If utility is all that matters – the internet is far, far superior. The superior quality of print lies in it’s tactile nature. In the future, to compete, magazines will have to be more specific and more interesting looking (especially when slim tablet, book sized computers start flooding the marketplace). They WILL definitely have smaller circulation – but stronger consumer brand identification.
Besides that, I care about quality – I despise media that’s only reason to exist is to perpetuate the business of itself. You can’t confuse marketability with what is of quality. I don’t understand arguing for more cultural detritus – most magazines are a blight on culture, not to mention the environment.
I read a LOT of magazines – but I only buy the most beautiful – beautiful isn’t so simple as “looks.” A great magazine is where there is no delineation between form and content – form IS content and vice versa. The great covers of Esquire’s past weren’t just pretty – they implied the meaning of what lay inside.