Why does Wired have a naked woman on the April cover?

{Pulling my hair out} I hate this cover!!! Hate it! Loathe it! Okay, there I have gotten it of my chest. Jenna Fischer, Miss Pam from The Office, is nekkid with nothing but a sign on the cover of Wired magazine's April issue. Actually, it's a two part cover where there is some acetate action going on. The first cover has a picture of Jenna in a short tight skirt business suit printed on the acetate, and the cover underneath is this one where she is naked, up-do still in tact. Top page. She's dressed. Flip page. She's naked.

The story Wired is trying to promote is about the new need for corporate transparency, you know all that getting authentic, "Naked Conversations" type of thing. The need for transparency is so obvious that even the bozos at "The Office" get it. Creative Director Scott Dadich had this to say:

"We wanted a cover that was smart and showy. And as Creative Director I wanted something that hadn't been done before. We settled on the idea of printing on clear acetate. But it had to be interactive. Now you’re in a business suit—now you’re not."

Okay, I get that corporate transparency is an important trend, but why do you have to put a naked woman on the cover to make your point? Why not put one of The Office guys naked on the cover? Oh that's right! {hit myself on the noggin} It's because no one wants to see a naked guy on the cover of a business magazine. Naked guys on covers isn't showy. No it's gross. But naked chicks, weeell that's a different pad of sticky notes.

Frankly, I think you were not being creative at all in this cover. It's familiar boy's club crap. Yeah, just sex up the receptionist. Why didn't you throw in the pot of coffee while you were at it? Naked women on business magazines is just wrooooong, and that's why it's never been done before by anyone with class. For crying out loud, how can you be so progressive and backwards at the same time? It's ridiculous Wired people! This just has sexist bad taste written all over it. This is definitely showy but it is by all means NOT smart. I want to unplug you now.

[source]

Comments

[Jim]

I'm surprised they didn't take the pictures in a kitchen.

I'm with ya! IRK!

[Steve]

They didn't put a naked man on the cover b/c that won't help sell magazines. This isn't ancient Greece - there is not a high level of aesthetic appreciation for the male nude in our culture.

The fact that the female form is subject to a high level of aesthetic focus and the male form is not is both helpful and harmful to women, largely based on their personal attitudes. The question I have for you is, why get upset about it? It's an arbitrary fact of life, one of many unfair things in life. If you spend this short life being upset about such trivial things as this, you'll waste it.

[Jojo]

This blog post fuels the buzz about the magazine.

The art direction and photo inspired this post, and the controversy is a direct result of Wired's smart marketing.

Just a hint o' skin spurs Victorian outrage.

It will help them sell more magazines.

Thank you!

[Stephanie Quilao]

Steve, I get the whole sex appeal thing sells, and nothing gets more attention than a pretty, half naked woman slapped on a cover. I have nothing against using sex appeal to sell when it is done appropriately and tastefully.

In this particular context, I get upset because Wired is supposed to be a serious business magazine, and this article is about a serious business topic. Women have been and continue to be objectified and sexualized in the workplace, and this shot only re-iterates that. I guarantee you that if the Wired Creative Director was a woman in this case, there would be no naked receptionists on a business story about corporate transparency. And in real life, most women do not wear the tight short Ally McBeal type suits to the office. The "business" suit Jenna is wearing is a male fantasy outfit.

And as far as stirring up controversy as "smart" marketing, I think people mix up any attention as good attention. Wired may be getting more people buzzing about them because of this controversial cover, but it is not positive buzz about their story on corporate transparency. People should be buzzing about the story not the naked girl. Who's even read or talking about the story? I won't because I'm just so turned off by its promotion.

As a consumer, and reader of Wired magazine, this display of unnecessary and gratuitous sexuality just shows me their lack of sensitivity to their female audience.

[Bianca Reagan]

Steve,

If this were ancient Greece, there would not be any magazines. I'm not upset about it because it's "an arbitrary fact of life." It's about reducing women to silent objects who exist solely to pleasure straight white men. The fact that you don't have a problem with the historical objectification of women says a lot more about you and your complacency than it does about my desire to be seen as a human being with equal rights.

Jojo,

Wired's marketing isn't smart; it's incendiary. My outrage isn't Victorian, nor is it over a "a hint o' skin." It's over a magazine that includes a poorly written puff piece about The Office (which is one of my favorite shows) and some vague concept of transparency in business, to justify putting the female star of that show naked on the cover of their April issue.

[James]

I always said the Dixie Chicks had no class. You just confirmed it.

http://www.magazine.org/Editorial/40-40-covers/27.jpg

Wired isn't a business magazine, by the way.

[Jillian Weiss]

Steve's right. There's no sense getting mad about the fact that women, no matter what else they may be, are enjoyed and consumed by men (if they meet the right dimensions, even if they're a rubber doll). Male interest in women as equals is practically nil, and if you look at the world outside the US/European bubble, you see where we came from -- female infanticide is common, women's education is opposed, female children are routinely bought and sold in arranged marriages and sex slavery, and birth control is a mortal sin. Here we let women go to work if they want, but frankly, ordinary working women are not very "sexy." But Anna Nicole's been in the Top Stories for months. That's the image of women we as a society honor.

I'm not mad, Steve. Just wise to it.

[Stephanie Quilao]

From Wired's media kit: WIRED explores the future of business, culture and innovation. The professions of their demographic:

Professional / Managerial:56%
C-Title:15%
"Influentials":18%
Retired:3%

The primary readers are business types and those who influence which are typically leaders and business focused.

Jillian, just because women are treated poorly elsewhere in the world does not mean that we just accept that as okay and go about our own business. As people from more abundant cultures, it is our duty to help others, and to be examples of what is possible. We don't just lay down and do nothing because "oh well, that's just the way it's always been." And the fact that people like Anna Nicole, Paris Hilton, and OJ Simpson stay in the news is a testament to what is ailing in our culture. These people should not be famous or popular but they are, and we as a society need to look at why that is so because it's not enrichening to the soul, spirit, or mind. Again, just because something is so doesn't mean that we just accept it and go along with the crowd, and do nothing or say nothing.

People can choose to be complacent, or choose to do something to make change happen, and I choose to do something. You would not have this life you live in America if some very brave people in our history did not stand up, fight, and suffer death/expulsion/imprisonment in order to make the world a better place for others.

Again, I don't dispel that sex appeal sells and that using sex appeal to sell is bad, I dispel the times when sex appeal is used gratuitously and inappropriately as in this Wired example. There was no need to put a naked woman on the cover to get their point across to an audience of business people.

[timheuer]

hmm...i have to call a littly hypocracy here. as i look at the cover (and can appreciate your viewpoint), i can't help (as i read the blog here not via a reader) but be drawn to the rather large header of your blog which shows low-cut, hip-hugger, provoking jeans and showing more (even showing the hip bone lines) than the wired cover -- and implies more. agree or not? comparing these two and reading your article seems to be a bit hypocratic.

[Stephanie Quilao]

All view points are appreciated, however, let's look closer at this Tim. First, my blog is about beauty and body image, and not about business. If it were about business then the image in my header would be inappropriate. If you read my about page, the header image fits in with the story behind the message of this blog, and what "Back in Skinny Jeans" is really about. There is consistency and context.

Next, in my header image the woman has pants on and even a belt. Jenna is wearing a sign and nothing more probably than underwear or a small swimsuit behind the sign. She can't go outside with what she has on and not cause a commotion. And again she is on the cover of a business type magazine where her nakedness is not appropriate in its context.

Lastly, if you read my comment above, I note that I am not against using sex appeal to sell if it is done appropriately and tasetefully. In the Wired example, I do not think it is appropraite at all, and I stated why. Would Microsoft put an image like this in any of it's publications or in any news story about them when talking about corporate transparency? I doubt it because again, it is not appropriate for a business audience.

Robert Scoble got "naked" to promote his book Naked Conversations, but he did it at a TechCrunch party with his book partner, and he did it representing himself, and not the company he worked for at the time which was Microsoft. Did I think that it was necessary for him to do that or that it was poor taste? No and Yes. Scoble is a geek. We can get the point without literally seeing him without his clothes.

I don't care for anyone getting naked for gratutitous reasons other than to get attention. In Wired's case, they could have gotten more creative and done something that didn't involve sexing up a receptionist. This cover was insulting to the female readers of Wired. It still makes me mad.

[timheuer]

i just thing you need to be a bit transparent as well -- the title of the post is "why does wired have a naked woman..." -- you are playing on the same appeal they are to entice readers to continue to read the depth of the story. your first 4 paragraphs are about your angst about having a naked woman, not about the business side of it (which i'm not arguing by the way).

regarding your header and the comment about the cover 'She can't go outside with what she has on and not cause a commotion.' first, you are making general assumptions here about what is on the other side of the billboard, fair enough. Looking at your header i am assuming that due to the amount of midriff shown, neither could that person make a commotion. and, to be a man for a second, if the person portrayed on your header was walking down the street i'd look...and so would a lot of other people...might not be an impact of a 'commotion' but it will turn heads...and how do i know that person isn't topless in your header? it's a fair assumption (based on the same logic you applied to the cover in your last comment) -- i see bare skin, belly button and not a lot left to the imagination of what is above that. i just think you need to be fair when you target things like that -- your post could have been *more* about wired could have used in your main post. you mentioned nothing about the business side of it until comments later -- so your initial post (removing any posted comments aside) reads that you are angry that a magazine chose a suggestive image to get their message across...and you rant about *that* not about that it's a business magazine, blah blah.

again, i just think you needed to be a little more fair. i appreciate the background of your header image and the blog in general, but to me, this is hypocracy when (in my opinion...even as a male) your header represents a suggestive image. but apparently that is okay as long as there is context justified behind it?

and by the way, the actual magazine has a transparent film on the cover to play on the title they are using -- transparency -- so to me the *whole* context should be represented, not just what appears to be a naked woman...showing less than what your header is i must point out again.

[Stephanie Quilao]

So Tim, I still am not buying your points. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. But for the sake of openness, I will open this up to anyone else to comment and share light.

Anyone in the viewing public, after reading my post and the comments attached, if you think I was being hypocritcal and un-fair in the Wired post then please share your opinion. (Please argue respectfully) I am going to be open as others may be able to share more light on something I may not be seeing.

[timheuer]

yeah, i guess i read your arguments as that they didn't need to put the suggestive photo on the cover of their magazine to make that specific point. i'm merely pointing out the same...you don't need (what i see as a more suggestive photo) to make your point either. and btw, this isn't the first time wired has had a cover like this (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/full.html) -- i don't think they are actually the "business" magazine that you may interpret them to be -- much more buzz/business but catering to a gen x/y/z crowd rather than the AT&T crowd ;-)

[Stephanie Quilao]

That other naked-type Wired cover example you showed reminds me of the Britney Spears Toxic video where she was wearing something of a similar look except in the Toxic video you get to see all of Britney's body with the private bits covered of course (barely).

I agree that Wired is not of the traditional business mag sense like a Business Week or Fast Company, but they like to promote themselves as such to the advertisers as seen in their media kit. They're like a newer age biz mag to hit the younger set that is a bit more holistic in its interests.

[ed]

the metaphor between transparency and nakedness is obvious and appropriate here: mind and body are intimate. furthermore, sexual appeal should not be mistaken for objectification, particularly when it is a symbol of healthy and consenting...dialogue.

[traspoolkae]

We weren't [url=http://ryan-cabrera.mp3cool.org]ryan cabrera[/url] to mls her to do anything she wasn't replacing for. Lossily dominant ryan cabrera images
godhead concurrently penal

[un_mestizo]

The cover is intended for a specific audience. It communicates a certain message and delivers it in the most interesting manner to that audience. Design is about function as much as it is about "creativity". Wired's audience is a younger-minded professional male and the actress is a current pop icon for referenceing today's coporate environment. So, the message is "transparency in today's corporate environment" and it is aimed at the target audience without apology, and in a manner that is very interesting to them. It functioned as it was intended to do so. The fact it's being discussed here means it also has longevity, and that's all we can hope to achieve with this medium.

[asherz]

i agree with jilliam completely. its true. i even wrote a blog about stuff like this on myspace.how men are never ever ever ever shown the way women are. i feel the same way about eveything you said : )