Time Magazine, the most popular newsmagazine in the world, has a "Special Fashion" issue this week, and it's really bad. You could tell so even without seeing it, since it is edited by the European bureau and published only in the European edition. Still, there was no way to guess it will be such a disaster.
The main project, online on their site, is a list of "the 25 most influential people in fashion". Boy, are we tired of this old trick. Two months ago, The Face had exactly the same headline. The editor writes in the leader: "Influence is indirect. It is an intangible force with tangible results. To categorize today who will determine the trends of tomorrow is a daunting task". The truth is exactly the contrary. It is a very easy task, and not very journalistic, too. To determine who is bigger, or richer, or better, or popular - that is a dauting task, because you have to collect the data, to double-check the numbers, to reveal deals and contracts.
But "influence"? You can print whatever you want. Here, I'll prove it: The most influencial person in fashion is Suzy Menkes from the International Herald Tribune. Sue me!
So establish a list of Influence (of course, "with help from industry insiders") is one of the oldest tricks of the trade. But no magazine, including the defunct Blitz, has ever publish a so careless influence list.
Clare Kent, for example. An analyst??! The most despised job in financial circles? And precisely the analyst who presided over the Burberry debacle last july, when shares went down on the very first day of its public offering?
Or Nick Knight. He's a great photographer, but is he more influencial then Meisel?
Or LVMH - 3 execs and board members on the list??? Or Karl Lagerfeld - influential?? Today???
But the really ridiculous piece is on Anne Wintour. She killed off Grunge single-handedly (yeah, sure)! She made Galliano (oops, wasn't it Menkes?) ! She doesn't bow to advertisers (ha-ha-ha-ha, excuse me, this is really too funny).