For Women – First Issue Report

Northern & Shell, publisher of Forum and Penthouse, launches a new soft porn women’s magazine this week, imaginativ- ely entitled For Women.

Billed as “the magazine for sensual women”, For Women claims “a heady, sensual cocktail” for the woman of the 1990s: “It’s racy, provocative and wild. Rather, we would guess,like you”. An interesting guess, but one well supported by extensive research and “requests from women nationwide.”

The magazine has certainly stimulated a sizeable degree of media excitement, and I suspect that the concept itself is one many women have been waiting for.

Unfortunately,strip away the platitudes and the excitement that has been generated by the tireless PR machine, and I think many women will be left feeling unsatisfied and cheated (not least out of £2.95 – the magazine’s cover price.)

And although one must concede that the magazine has managed to find some pretty men who are definitely not shy (and no wonder!), many women are likely to be disappointed that the magazine doesn’t go as far as its male- oriented counterparts. Sadly, legal restrictions pour cold water on displays of arousal, but many of the shots are coy to the point of banality. Surprisingly, this archness is carried over into some of the articles, where four-letter words are blanked out or avoided. For a magazine that claims that women are just as capable of enjoying pornography as men, there are instances of astonishing over-protectiveness.

The magazine’s main failing, given the legal exigencies and the need to appeal to women on more than the visual level, is that it does not include enough of the fodder found in regular women’s magazines like Elle or Marie- Claire.

We are promised all the usual women’s magazine froth: “Our celebrity nudes testify to that”. But it must be said that five grainy photographs of un- identifiable celebrity male rears really don’t generate much froth.

Articles on The Dreamboys, oral sex and vibrators do not go any further than similar features in more mainstream titles, and are not balanced with the stock fashion spreads (unless you count a few shots of rubber wear), beauty tips and meaty lifestyle features; sex can become tedious if allowed to lapse into monotony. Are the women who ravenously consume articles on sex aids/practices and the intricacies of the male libido in Cosmo, Company and Marie-Claire really that different from the type of women who are interested in glossy pictures of very attractive naked men? And if, as I suspect, they are bedfellows, why has the publisher been so blinkered in its approach to the mag’s editorial?

Whilst I would anticipate healthy sales of the first issue , based on the ubiquitous launch publicity, the sheer novelty value of this type of publicat- ion and the assumption that women of the 1990s really aren’t beset by embarrassment about purchasing such a mag, it is hard to envisage For Women building a loyal readership. The strain of filling 100 pages with sex is already evident from the first issue, and the editorial content may well become a little limp.

I suspect that the old addage “if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all” may well prove true of For Women.

The magazine has 100 pages, with an ed/ ad ratio 90/10. Most of the ads are for sex-lines and sex aids, with ads for hair extensions and cover girl makeover sessions the only vaguely mainstream advertising to appear. Interestingly, there has been no launch ad campaign for the magazine , with all of the publicity being generated through PR.

For Women is a bi-monthly publication and has an initial print run of 120,000. Ad rates are £2,000 for a mono page and £2,750 for a colour page.

For Women: 071 987 5090