Vanity Fair Says That Gisele Is Losing Her Looks
June 18, 2009 in Gisele Bündchen by Versus
What? That’s harsh! Did they really say that? Here it is:
Gisele, it turns out, doesn’t sell.
Vanity Fair and Harper’s Bazaar each put Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen on covers this year, and both promptly had their worst-selling issues off the newsstand in 2009.
The May Vanity Fair, which featured a bare-bodied Gisele, standing sideways with a come-hither look, sold only 280,000 single sale copies, the lowest total for the magazine in nearly two years, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations Rapid Report.
Harper’s Bazaar’s April issue, meanwhile sold only 132,000 copies, its lowest total of the year and its lowest since November 2008, when Drew Barrymore was on the cover.
Harper’s Bazaar has averaged about 155,000 single copy sales this year, and Vanity Fair has averaged 342,000.
“It might be that she’s losing her looks,” quipped Vanity Fair spokeswoman Beth Kseniak.
Considering the number of covers that Gisele Bundchen has graced this year—including the July issue of German Glamour and German Elle—magazine publishers and editors are crossing their fingers that she has more appeal overseas.
Ms. Kseniak also pointed out that when Gisele graced the Vanity Fair cover in September 2007, it was the third-biggest seller that year.
One industry source said that some newsstand sales were affected in earlier this year after Anderson News, a major distributor, suspended its business operations, though publishers feel that all distribution problems have been ironed out.
Source: The New York Observer
How ridiculous. She’s absolutely gorgeous. God I hate how bitchy other women can be.
haha i know right. way to blame bad mag sales on gisele “losing her looks”. thats bs right there.
i don’t know why, but i don’t think she’s beautiful, especially i don’t like her face.. just my opinion
I agree. I like her photoshopped photos, but her paparazzi photos show that she isn’t sth very special facially. Her body was so great, but I think that now she has lost too much weight…this doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have a nice body, but just not as perfect as it used to be.
i can only hope this quote was meant as a joke! gisele’s absolutely perfect imo
love giselle. but i am admittedly one of the mentioned oversea’s target group
don’t find the comment “It might be that she’s losing her looks” harsh at all, considering the context of the interview.
I have never found Gisele to be all that attractive. Though I think there are many other reasons for not buying a magazine other than thinking the person on the cover is not attractive. If I like a magazine and have found it interesting before, I will still buy it even if I don’t find the cover girl pretty. I am not buying the magazine just to stare at her picture.
i dont think they actually meant she’s losing her looks by shes getting ugly but that shes less appealing as she may once of been, different looks of people is like fashion theres trends.
Well, I don’t wanna be rude or smthg but they might be right… When I want to buy a specific magazine and I find out that it’s Gisele on the cover, I’m going like ‘Oh no, not again’ and sometimes even search for something else. She’s not a such attractive cover-girl for me… And you know what? When it’s ELLE for example with Gisele on the cover, I can find it everywhere all month long, but when it’s someone else I just can barely find the issue in the city! That’s a verified info, trust me.
why do they assume she’s losing her looks? personally, i think she’s just boring and overrated…and of course if you put the same face on every magazine in the world, at some point people will stop buying magazines out of sheer boredom. plus, when the title is “gisele, the most beautiful woman in the world” i’m even less interested, because you can already tell the article is going to be really dumb.
I thinks she looks gorgeous. If her covers aren’t selling is because she’s been around for a while so people are getting bored. Isn’t that how it works in Hollywood? There’s always new “it” girls. And I think people are also more interested in these young actresses that are just as skinny as models but have all kinds of drama in their lives.
To be perfectly honest, it is unfair to say that she is the reason why the sales have been that low for those particular magazines. The real reason behind why I buy a magazine isnt based on the girl on the cover, but the content that is portrayed on the cover- the headlines, the story lines, etc. It’d be really stupid for me to buy a magazine just cause a couple pictures of Gisele inside. I actually like to read and I base it on the articles, not the girl.
i totally agree. thats exactly what i was thinking.
Exactly, I rarely find the “celeb” interviews interesting at all anyway.
of course she’s still pretty..but she looks very blah like oatmeal. she kind of fades away in the backround…i wouldn”t buy it lol
all the men I know certainly appreciate her face and body.
lol losing her looks? Bitch please, stop being so jealous. It doesn’t make you look any better.
I don’t think she looks any better or worse than she did awhile back, I just think people are starting to get Gisele-d out.
I sorry but gisele was never that pretty to me anyway but she makes millions so someone sees something that i do not…..i am not saying she is not attractive just not gorgeous to me but beauty is in the eye of the beholder…..
She has never been one of my faves, but I have liked her more the last few times I have seen her photos than in the past. She is not losing her looks in any way that I can see.
I would blame a bad (boring) cover layout for that Vanity fair isuue if anything. Gisele looks great.
she’s absolutely gorgeous
Vanity Fair is full of caca. You mean the pic they chose for the cover, their obnoxious question on the cover, their mockery of how she’s gonna save the economy statement, and the spectacle they created by getting her to talk about Bridget’s son had nothing to do with it?. Of course not. Passing the buck is huge in this country; ask politicians. 280,000 copies in a recession is huge, but then again this is the land of Greed. Nothing is ever enough.
Average? I can average my salary with Tom Cruise and bam I’m a millionnaire. I want them to give the # for each cover. Losers.
we are a fickle crowd. one minute we are falling over a celeb’s looks but the second a new younger model comes into the picture we ditch the former as though they were a moulding old rag on the shelf!
i think they mean that giselle is losing her appeal, when say losing her looks. considering the current economic climate and loads of other factors, i doubt that giselle being on the cover is the reason for poor sales (but it makes an interesting story for the media doesn’t it?!)
maybe theres other reasons why people arent buying magazines… aka the economy
I never liked Giselle, she was always just so dreadfully bony, at one time she was bony with oranges on her chest (breast implants). One of the thinnest models alive and pro-ana girls actually look up to her, it’s just sad. I don’t care if she’s naturally like that or not…but honestly, even the skinniest people would gain weight for the sake of their well being if they truly wanted to, and especially in her case as she’s a public figure and has got alot of pro-mia and pro-ana girls looking up to her…her BMI is probably 15 at most, and pics of her are always photoshopped to make her look less gangly and skeletal. Overweight people are often advised to lose weight, if they don’t they are ‘lazy’, it doesn’t matter if they’re struggling with metabolic disorders that make it hard for them to lose weight…but when you criticize an underweight person and they don’t make an effort to gain weight, people sympathize them more readily and their excuses of being ‘naturally like that’. What hypocrisy!