I have to end this Cosmo story once and for all! You know we talked about Carey Mulligan’s photos being on multiple magazines covers? Same goes for Gisele Bundchen’s Cosmopolitan Australia, the January 2012 issue.
Aren’t you having a big case of déjà vu? It’s because it’s the same picture as the one published on the cover of Vogue, the famous April 2010 issue, Gisele’s first cover after giving birth, in the mirror. Minus the background. And no, Cosmopolitan is not Conde Nast. It’s Hearst. And yes, editors do lack imagination. And funds. Will Cosmo’s regular buyers notice the picture? I doubt it. Gisele’s selling power is more important than who was first to publish this picture! And… it’s Cosmopolitan after all, people are used to seeing poor covers.
3 comments
Blah cover no doubt about it.
US Vogue isn’t readily available in OZ & if you do find an issue it is 2 months out of date & varies in price from $7 – $24!
Okay..usual photoshop snarks aside its a great picture of Giselle. But I can’t help feeling how magazines who do this seem to make fools of its readers.
The least they could have done was maybe photoshopped the colour of her top and shorts to make it seem like a different photo.
Oh and have I mentioned just how much I LOATH Cosmopolitan?
Well its A LOT! ; )
Leave a Comment