Marie Claire’s Weighty Dilemma – All PR is Good PR or an Alienation of Readers?
For the second time in recent weeks, Marie Claire has ignited a firestorm with content that readers deemed offensive. This time it was the post, “Should Fatties Get a Room,” in which blogger Maura Kelly questions whether or not overweight people should be intimate on television.
The writer makes some comparisons of being overweight vs. obese, some suggestions on how to lose weight and uses some choice words like “disgusting,” “grossed out” and “rolls and rolls of fat.” The post incensed so many people that the magazine has even become a trending topic on Twitter, and Facebook comments are scathing. In addition, scores of bloggers have been posting responses and mainstream media is also chiming in, including this story from the New York Daily News. In the olden days a few letters to the editor might have made it to the magazine’s front pages, but in today’s world of immediate response through social media, it takes only minutes to launch a war of words by thousands.
Yikes! I’m a huge fan of Marie Claire and have been a subscriber for years. I enjoy the mix of fashion commentary and compelling editorial the magazine provides. But it’s not hard to see how this post would be offensive to scores of people, and come off harsh and discriminatory. The writer issued an update that included an apology, and proceeded to respond to some of the 300+ comments (I’m having trouble finding her comments now, so you’ll probably have to dig.) Her apology alluded to her battle with an eating disorder, although her original post provided easy-to-follow instructions on how overweight people could shed pounds, which only served to flame the fire more. From the looks of the comments, readers aren’t feeling too forgiving.
Marie Claire has posted this response on its Facebook page:
Hey guys, we’ve heard from thousands of people today regarding MC.com blogger Maura Kelly’s controversial op-ed. She has been interacting with readers on our site throughout the day, and has also just posted an apology that’s updated on the original post (link below). Please take a look and continue to share your feedback, thanks
From a PR standpoint, there’s a lot to talk about here. It’s clear at this point the magazine isn’t taking ownership of the content. Is there an apology due in the first place, or is good editorial designed to incite conversation and debate? Did the magazine erroneously let the writer take the fall? Should senior management chime in? How would you suggest they respond? What can Marie Claire do to regain the trust of its readers, or have they dismantled the work they’ve put into being a magazine for all women? I’d love to get your thoughts in the comments below.
Photo Credit : Clouda9
How ironic. A fashion/beauty magazine reverting to such tactics to increase page views.
Yes, an apology should be made. The idea that a publication such as Marie Claire would even allow such an post to be made public is beyond comprehension. These are the same publications that have gotten blasted for portraying that a size 0 is the only figure that’s attractive. We’ve been fighting these battles for years (I know, they’ll never go away) but to think such a narrow-minded and childish post would make it past the editing phase is concerning.
Will it get people to visit their website? Absolutely. Will people forget about it after a while? Probably. We’ll all move on and no longer associate the author with this piece. We’ll move on and someone else will post similar content. We’re a society that forgets and forgives until the issue is brought up again. Is it good or bad for Marie Claire? Short-term, I’d say good. Long-term, it’ll have little impact on the publication.
That being sad, it’s still sad that we have to have this discussion.
Kasey – Great comment as usual. I agree there are a lot of inconsistencies with messaging here, which I think lends itself to the dissent. I’d love to be a fly on the wall there.
Rachel
Ouch. that’s a tough one. I think the editors are as much to blame for letting something like that run as the author is. An apology from the publisher and/or editor needs to run immediately. As follow up, they need to show that they are not insensitive to overweight people, while at the same time not let this completely take over their publication. I would recommend seeking out some kind of mea culpa that says “we get it, we blew it, we understand that was totally inappropriate.” They should start some sort of program, a la The Biggest Loser, where they challenge readers to lose weight with their own staff. I don’t think this is a case of “at least they’re talking about us.” But I do think there’s an opportunity to turn it into a positive, if handled carefully.
Greg,
I agree with you, but I don’t think we’ve seen any apologies from the editors here so we’ll see how it plays out. It might be done at this point.
Rachel
Great post, Rachel! Beauty professionals always get a bad wrap for encouraging women to lose weight and look a certain way so this issue does not help the brand at all. It is going to give people a reason to lash out. We all know obesity is a problem in our country but it isn’t cool to poke fun at — especially through this brand’s popular medium.
Great post Rachel! I agree, the editors are just as responsible. As a reporter, nothing made me more mad than when a editor would encourage me to do a story, and then not back me up when the angry phone calls came. This reminded me of that experience. They should have vetted the story before hand and asked her to be a little more tactful. They were persuing a story they’d heard — that people were grossed out by the show and encouraged her to write on it. But her writing wasn’t where it should be for a piece like that. She could have written an effective piece about “normalizing society’s ills” or something and been thought provoking.
I like that Maura is participating in the discussion and has issued an update. That’s better than just taking the post down, which is what a lot of sites may have done. But everything published is cached and that would have bit them in the foot.
Now… they can issue a formal “we’re sorry, this doesn’t reflect our values,” perhaps in the letter from the editor in the next issue and move on.
Natalie,
Great points. It’s just like in the PR world, where we have to back up our staff if we let something fly and it goes sour. I feel for Maura in some ways, as she’s been on her own here with the apologies. I hope they address it in the next issue as well.
Rachel
Interesting piece and it looks like the backlash was immediate. I respect the fact that they didn’t take the post down and allowed the blogger to offer an apology directly to the readers – and I agree that the responsibility falls on the editors even if it’s in the blog world vs. straight editorial.
I think it is awful that a magazine as ‘influential’ as Marie Claire is to thousands of women around the world would publish the “Should Fatties Get A Room’ piece without proof reading it first.
If something has been published by Marie Claire on their website they must take some responsibility for it and not, as they are currently doing, pass the entire blame onto the writer.
Fine the author, Maura Kelly, issued an apology however is saying “sorry” really enough? If so we would all be saying/writing hurtful comments and then turning around and saying “oh sorry” – perhaps this is freedom of speech at its best? It certainly has caused a stir!
A good editorial may be designed to incite a debate, but I don’t think they’re getting the debate they aimed for. People are seriously offended, with good reason, and I don’t think any of the people leaving comments on the site think that there could be another side to the story. This editorial could have been written less offensively, maybe by taking the angle of “Some Americans are saying… While others…” That would incite the debate that MC.com would take less heat for.
Ultimately, it’s a thin line between being offensive and being on the beneficial side of controversial. In this case, I think the writer stepped over the line by basically insulting overweight readers. The magazine editors allowed the article to run, they should definitely shoulder some of the blame, but MC won’t. Distancing the magazine from the article is their way of trying to salvage their reputation and as unfair as it is, I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same. They’re going to move on and eventually everyone will forget about this.
I think it’s up to Marie Claire to stand up and not throw the blame solely on the reporter. At the end of the day, MC is still the one that decided to publish the post. If they had an issue with it then they should have acknowledged it before letting it run. If I were them I would have issued a more direct statement on why it ran such an article. Don’t necessarily take it down, but address the thinking of why they published it and continue to let the reporter answer questions that readers may have.
@Worob
PR at Sunrise – worob.com
I actually laughed out loud when I saw 130 pages of comments on that article – my browser didn’t handle it to well.
What the Marie Claire comms team needs to do:
1) Large apology (half page at least?) in print issue
2) Axe the writer (damage control no matter how you look at it)
3) Take a hard look revising their entire editor/approval process – and make that known to their audience.
How this happens twice in two months is beyond me (that said, this one is much more white/black then the first controversy). You’re killing your business MC!
later in the day, I noticed a new pop-up that wasn’t there earlier.
How about Marie Claire donates the money from the advertising revenue they are gaining from this page to a non-profit that raises awareness and helps those who struggle with eating disorders.. Just a thought.
Excellent idea julieUnscripted – donating the profits would be a good way to apologize.