Did I have a problem with
now-infamous boobsucking TIME cover? Not at all, but I was somewhat surprised
by the brouhaha that surrounded the image of the "booby Mom" whose 3-year
old was photographed standing on a chair suckling her boobies. Does that sound so pornographic or rude? You'd
think so based on the throngs of readers (and media outlets) who commented on
the controversial cover, considering it pornographic. Really people? I was a
lot more troubled by what was going inside
TIME Magazine and the article
about attachment parenting than the cover. Truly troubled.
But back to the image… “Booby
Mom” has spawned an avalanche of coverage and launched much discussion, not
just about “attachment parenting,” the actual subject of the TIME cover story,
but about the ways in which magazines (like all print media), have taken
massive hard-copy readership hits can use thoughtful, provocative content and
social-media relationships with readers to boost revenues. A TIME spokeswoman told
the New York Times that the cover helped that issue become the magazine’s best-seller
so far this year and doubled the subscription rates for that week. Says a lot
about the so-called disgust about a breastfeeding mom on the cover, right?
Anyone who’s been paying
attention knows that since around 2003-2004 newspaper and magazine circulation
numbers have plunged as a result of the internet revolution. This got me
thinking, as someone who pitches stories to media outlets for a living, about how
print media can use provocation and button-pushing to help bolster their other
ongoing efforts to slow the slide. Of course, a lot of the time provocative
content gets shelved on the recommendation of the bean-counters who are afraid of
offending anyone who might possibly buy a copy of the paper, or better yet, a
subscription.
Let’s Face it, Bare Skin Sells… Is That So Bad?
And yet it is the most
controversial messages that generate the most visceral reaction. Let’s face it,
they are the messages that lead to water-cooler talk, arguments and coveted
mindshare of brands. If you’re old
enough you’ll probably remember Demi Moore’s naked and very pregnant Vanity Fair cover in
1991. The “decency police” went berserk
denouncing the cover as obscene and generally gross. But like TIME’s “Booby
Mom” cover, the Demi Moore cover is one of Vanity Fair’s best-remembered and most imitated ad nauseam by celebrity women with a bun in the oven.
And then there was the The New
Yorker, whose editorial staff must have been sweating (and likely
second-guessing themselves) on the eve of the publication’s 2008 cover
lampooning Fox News’ take on Barack and Michelle Obama’s onstage “fist bump” as
a “terrorist fist jab,” bracing for the storm of
criticism that followed. That happens in
lots of industries: fear of offense and
of reduced revenue discouraging unconventional or “risky” views.
Fear is contagious and all too soon there is nobody left who is willing
to voice an idea that could be seen as too “out there.”
I’ve seen this with numerous clients I’ve dealt with throughout my
career. It’s understandable, especially in the tetchy economic climate we’ve
been living in for the past several years. And, when necessary, it’s been my
role to poke, prod and nudge a nervous client to take a risk that ends up
paying off. As someone whose business is to improve clients’ business, I know
it’s important to encourage “outside the box” ideas because that’s where
innovation comes from. When we push ourselves beyond our comfort zones we often
end up succeeding way beyond our own expectations.
So kudos to TIME Magazine. Kudos to the “booby Mom” Jamie Grumet. And
kudos to the other half of TIME readers who could stomach a 3-year-old nursing
from his mother’s breast.
Of course, if we didn’t have that brouhaha in the first place, maybe I
wouldn’t have written this piece to begin with. And that’s exactly my point.
Posts
