Bridal magazines seem to think black women don’t get married
by Carmen Van Kerckhove
Frisby and Erika Engstrom, professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, studied mainstream bridal magazines published from 2000 to 2004…
The covers and advertisements of 57 randomly selected issues of Bride’s Magazine, Modern Bride and Elegant Bride published from 2000 to 2004 were analyzed. Frisby and Engstrom did not find a significant improvement in the portrayal of African-American women: fewer than 2 percent of the advertisements featured African-American brides, and not a single magazine analyzed had an African-American bride on the cover. Images of African-American bridesmaids were more common.
“Our data seem to support the idea that the phrase ‘always a bridesmaid, never a bride’ was actually meant for how women of color are represented in bridal magazines,” Frisby said. “Such portrayals of African-American women as bridesmaids may communicate a negative assumption that it’s better for African Americans to stay in background roles as opposed to positions of equal status or power. Various forms of bias in bridal advertisements not only harm African-American women’s sense of identity, but also derail attempts to show that our society is multicultural and accepting of people of color. Interracial settings and frequent portrayal of African Americans as main characters may help break down cultural and racial barriers and increase communication among people of all colors and ethnicities.”
I’m sure a lot of this is influenced by the (unfortunately) pervasive stereotype of black women as unwed mothers. And let’s not forget that mainstream magazines are extremely reluctant to put women of color on the cover because anytime they do, newsstand sales take a nosedive — even when the woman is a superstar like Halle Berry or Beyonce.
(Thanks to Kimberly for the tip!)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Lyonside wrote:
When I was wedding-shopping, I noticed that the African-American models were in the David’s Bridal catalogs. You might find it trivial, but it was interesting for me to see how different shades of dresses looked on different skin tones - I chose a dress with ivory in it in part because a lighter-toned African-American (I assume) model was in that dress - it was easier to picture myself in that shade.
Isn’t that the point of magazines, to sell products that the reader might want to use, and to make them picture themselves using the product?
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 3:38 pm ¶
HighJive wrote:
Hmmmm…
Not sure the study draws the right hypotheses.
First of all, Black women are virtually non-existent in all women’s fashion magazines. There are a handful of Black supermodels, but they only make sporadic appearances. Hell, they’re more often in the scandal mags (e.g. Naomi Campbell’s escapades) than the fashion publications.
Editors ultimately cater to their audiences. They no doubt have data showing their readership is overwhelmingly White, so the editorial reflects the subscriber base. It’s really a vicious cycle of perpetual exclusivity: Black women don’t buy the magazines because they’re underrepresented in the pages, and the magazines don’t represent Black women because they’re not buying.
The Black bridesmaids are probably a result of editors attempting to be multicultural and politically correct. It would be hard to believe anyone is even subconsciously making a statement about single motherhood
There is at least one magazine exclusively catering Black brides. Actually, there’s probably more than one. Like everything else, publications are segregated according to ethnicity.
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 3:52 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
It’s true, but there’s the “specific audience” mags, and then there are the “general interest” mags. You can’t tell me that Better Homes and Gardens has only a white straight female audience (and actually, judging from the articles, they really really don’t). That doesn’t matter w/ their advertisers, though, who seem to go with the “safe” (i.e. white) route more often than not - or at least, those that are meant for multiple types of magazines - an AARP, shampoo, or prescription drug ad, for example. I don’t count advertising diversity as much of a slam against a magazine, as opposed to the diversity of shoots for a specific article.
Something I’m noticing too since getting a lot of free to cheap baby/child magazines lately: some only have minority children in the ads, never in the articles. Those are the ones that I won’t buy a subscription for.
The ones I’ve subscribed to, however, have generally had not only minority kids/babies in groups, but also as the only kid on the page. Bonus points if they actually show a parent involved with the child. Really, everyone knows the Fisher Price brand, every parent is interested in vaccines and preschool trends, so shouldn’t that be reflected in their magazine shoots?
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 4:45 pm ¶
Adrianna wrote:
We could say the same for hair Magazine. All the women are wearing weave or have permed hair. It’s hard to find one that caters to Natural hair care for black women. I know of only one
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 5:54 pm ¶
HighJive wrote:
Lyonside,
I was focused more on fashion mags.
I’m definitely not supporting the actions of these publishers. Just presenting some reality. One more thing: Lack of diversity in editorial probably comes from lack of diversity in editorial staffs. It’s all connected.
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 6:34 pm ¶
kim wrote:
Don’t we all know Black women don’t get married? This is so well documented that any minute women like me are going to just fade away. I’m going to disappear from this thread and no one will
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 6:38 pm ¶
herpeapod wrote:
Besides,
didn’t all the little Black girls choose the blonde doll, anyway?
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 6:44 pm ¶
thejoyprincess wrote:
Not too long ago I had a friend who worked for one of the more popular bridal magazines mentioned above.
I used to try to funnel her black women and other women of color. She tried, I’ll give her that, but she was in the middle of the masthead so her power was quite limited.
Black women just don’t really exist for the magazine industry, but they’ll take our money in a minute.
I’ve worked on those editorial staffs and the willful ignorance and general cluelessness remains astounding
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 8:11 pm ¶
maly wrote:
this reminds me why i love coming to asia. its almost overwhelming to see every add and every piece of media reflecting a face that is close to mine.
Posted 14 Dec 2006 at 9:28 pm ¶
dcase wrote:
The unconditional probability of a black woman marrying is rather low relative to their counterparts ( and is declining). So in some sort of expected value sense, it does make sense for these magazines not to direct the majority of their coverage to black women. On the other hand, especially among black women, marriage has a strong positive correlation with education and income. Hence, given that this is probably their target subpopulation, they may actually help the bottom line by opening things up a bit .
Posted 15 Dec 2006 at 1:10 am ¶
HighJive wrote:
Another thing to consider: Like the recent Paula Zahn CNN program on racism, the bridal study is primarily Black and White. The article about the study made zero references to Latino or Asian brides, or any other ethnic or cultural segment.
Posted 15 Dec 2006 at 3:38 am ¶
SolShine7 wrote:
Stuff like this is proof that this country still has a long way to go when it comes to displaying real diversity.
Posted 15 Dec 2006 at 8:13 am ¶
mtevc wrote:
A number of years back, a friend (a journalist) did a story for Bride Magazine…talking about merging family wedding traditions in an interracial family, and she interviewed me and my husband…as the typical white/black couple. At least she wasn’t a nut and asking us wacky questions, but as a journalist myself, and knowing what journalist can center on to make people more “colorful” (forgive the pun), we were especially on guard…she couldn’t get juicy stuff out of us.
Posted 15 Dec 2006 at 1:15 pm ¶
Mrs. J wrote:
Kim, you are too funny!
dcase, I agree. If the titles wanted to increase their bottom lines, they’d make a conscious decision to include more African American brides. Black girls have Martha Stewart weddings, too!
joyprincess, I agree with you that the clulessness on most editorial staffs is ridiculously astounding…and that there’s not much a staffer at the middle of the masthead can do (used to be one myself).
But I also think it’s important to acknowledge that statistically, black women actually marry less frequently than white women do. And when the broom is finally jumped, it’s usually at a later age. I was 27, relatively early statisically speaking I think, but here it is eight years later and many of my black girlfriends are still single. I should probably, for the record, state that they’re also professional and childless.
Having worked at a national mag, I really think that many decisions are based on the subscriber base, newstand sales and ad dollars. Most titles tend to think about their readers in a general sense, and are very concerned with keeping them. Editors make their decisions about the types of models to feature based largely on demographics of the readership. Ads are (partly) chosen this way as well. Case in point: a friend of mine at a nat’l parenting mag told me that she was asked to book “fewer ethnic children” because the book “looked too ethnic”. This came from the editor in chief who has an Asian child.
How a bridal mag would glean info about their true audience, and keep this audience is a mystery to me. I think many brides buy the mags from newsstands, look at them for a few months and then throw them away after they get married. I threw most of mine away before hand, because so many of them seemed so Middle America mainstream (and my wedding was pretty traditional, just not very conservative). Whether the fact that I chucked them early had to do with race or not, I don’t know – I never really thought about it. But looking back, maybe I was subconsciously turned off because I didn’t see a bride like me.
Posted 15 Dec 2006 at 10:20 pm ¶
Steven Brown wrote:
The ignorance of this topic disturbs me. You all are over-analyzing. If you do not enjoy the magazine do not buy it.
Posted 18 Dec 2006 at 9:00 pm ¶
hannah wrote:
That’s not the point, Steven Brown. It isn’t that we’re upset that we have purchased bridal magazines which we have found to be lacking–it’s that this reflects upstting truths about our culture.
Besides, I would rather live in a society where issues like race, class, and gender are over-analyzed, rather than overwhelmingly taken for granted, ignored, and normalized.
Posted 18 Dec 2006 at 10:16 pm ¶
Kim wrote:
That’s right, only the white women of the world should have their girlhood dreams of princess play reflected as a possibility in their adulthoods.
May as well dispense with the idea, since we all know the rest of us are just ‘mules of de world,’ anyway, right?
Posted 18 Dec 2006 at 10:36 pm ¶
Mrs. J wrote:
My best friend – maid of honor in my wedding 7 years ago…the one who’s a complete sweetheart, bends over backwards for everybody…the one who was always the bridesmaid and never the bride – just got engaged over Christmas! Too a really good guy, too. *jumping for joy*
I’ll have to ask her what she thinks of these magazines, considering she already bought a few. But I have a feeling she’s so happy, she might not even notice what we’re complaining about.
Not to say she should. The bridal industry is based on fantasy anyway. Anybody ever see one of those Disney weddings? No offense if it was your own. I guess I’m just saying that it would be nice if we saw more sisters in the bridal mags, but in reality, after all the hydrangea centerpieces and letterpressed invites, it’s really about the marriage…what happens after the honeymoon’s over. As well it should be.
Posted 31 Dec 2006 at 10:54 pm ¶
Mrs. J wrote:
Not to destroy anyone’s fantasy about matrimony and romance as you’ve just noticed that I, a married black woman, just sat here and wrote this at 10pm on New Year’s Eve. It’s all, good…hubby and I are still in love but both are down with the flu. Not that we’d be kicking our heels up tonight anyway, since finding a New Years Eve sitter for three under six is not only impossible, but also prohibitively expensive.
Happy New Year!
Posted 31 Dec 2006 at 10:59 pm ¶
merq wrote:
It’s all, good…hubby and I are still in love but both are down with the flu.
I’ve found my people!!!
Seriously, feel better.
Posted 31 Dec 2006 at 11:20 pm ¶
kim wrote:
Mrs. J–
I’m right there with you…we’re watching Clint Eastwood, and monitoring a sick child.
You should be here, you could get a sitter tonight for just $60.oo/per.
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
Posted 01 Jan 2007 at 1:08 am ¶
Juwan wrote:
This comment has been deleted by the moderator. Please do not create multiple identities/personalities for yourself. If you have something to say, pick one identity and stick with it please.
Posted 02 Jan 2007 at 2:42 pm ¶
nicole brown wrote:
Why buy the magazines, go to the movies, watch the television shows if you are not represented? what would happen if black people stopped participating in a culture that does not represent them in any way? get out of the culture.stop complaining.you are not powerless.you do not have to buy the magazines, go to the movies or watch the television shows.stop kowtowing to white culture.
Posted 20 Jan 2007 at 11:53 am ¶
kim wrote:
…then we would change our names from ‘kim’ and ‘nicole brown,’ start our own working, economic and cultural society, and deal with the mainstream American society only on our own terms.
‘Til then, the baby wants to eat just like all the rest of her mother’s children.
Posted 20 Jan 2007 at 2:32 pm ¶
Debra wrote:
Check out http://www.signaturebride.net…Signature Bride magazine is coming back to cater to all Black women planning their wedding and building their home. The magazine goes into the first 3 years of marriage and covers planning, fashion, health/beauty, communication, cooking, travel and much more! Keep checking the website for publication information!
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 11:04 am ¶
Josh wrote:
43 % of black women don’t get married. The reason you don’t see alot of Black women on magazines is because they make up only 6% of the population.
Posted 19 Mar 2007 at 6:53 pm ¶
Editor wrote:
Greetings,
I read the article and I would like you to encourage you to visit our website. World Bride Magazine is looking to change the stereo type that African-American women, Asian, Latina, Indian, and other so-called minorities don’t get married.
I’ve worked in the fashion industry for the past 15 years and see the changes that need to be made and choose to do something about it.
Publisher,
World Bride Magazine
http://www.worldbridemagazine.com
Posted 31 Mar 2007 at 3:02 am ¶
cat3000 wrote:
Hello,
I am getting married next year in October and every magazine I buy has white women on the front, inside, and on the back. I would like to see black models in wedding gowns too. Everytime I google anything that has to do with weddings, I always get white women in wedding gowns and no black. I want to see more. I am not buying anymore magazines with white women on the front. We do exist, I don’t care what the percent is.
Posted 04 Aug 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶
baebeedoll wrote:
i think that it is a good observation to even notice something as trival as that. i never really thought about until i decided that i would get married. I look at the mags for ideas but my married african american friends are the ones i look to for ideas that i can relate to. these mags are not geared towards african american women. they don’t expect us to get married so why make our mags to cater the us. there are plenty of web sites that cater to us and we too can have the wedding of our dreams.
Posted 17 Sep 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
J.Roberts wrote:
I am working on an african american bridal magazine and I pray that each one of you will support it when it comes out in Feb of 2009. Please view http://www.jrobertsweddings.com for up and coming information.
Posted 17 Oct 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶