Too bad, so sad…
Struggling ‘lads mag’ Zoo Weekly will publish its last issue in October, with corporate types blaming “rough retail conditions in the men’s market” on poor sales.
We’d like to think it’s more that there isn’t much demand for a publication that objectifies women in the most blatant way.
Either way, we’re not going to miss it.
It turns out people don’t want to buy a magazine with tips about how to pick up the “skankiest” girl in a group and “separate her from the flock” or how to let a “dewy-eyed” girl “know she’s being f–ked”.
A magazine that commemorates the service people who died for our country with a bikini-clad model holding a poppy and talking about how she likes “guys in uniform”.
)“They’re bad arses, they have guns and they’re really fit and well built,” she said in that cringeworthy issue. “Plus they know how to follow orders…”)
A magazine filled with bums, and boobs, and salacious, ridiculous captions.
Or a magazine that published a photoshopped image of politician Sarah Hanson-Young’s head on the body of a lingerie model, later explaining they created the demeaning image because of her views on refugees.
The axing is hardly a surprise after Coles banned the title from sale at the supermarket last month following a petition by lobby group Collective Shout.
There were also calls for Woolworths to join the ban.
Zoo’s closure includes the magazine, website and social media content, Mumbrella reports.
It reports that sales became so dire in recent years that Bauer Media withdrew the title from the circulated audit figures.
So, it’s the end of an era. And we couldn’t be happier.
This is the kind of thing we’ll be missing:
Zoo Weekly covers
Top Comments
Ok, the magazine may not financially be doing well and so the choice was made to finish publication, however, to blame the content for being misleading, sexist etc is going too far. Come on seriously, WHEN do New Idea, Woman's Weekly, Cosmo, even Girlfriend ask all their celebs in their MADE UP WORK of FICTION if they can publish their bad angled, suddenly photoshopped images in their mag and use CREATIVE LICENCE to get away with writing fictionous works from an image. All those rumors which were not even rumors prior to the release of the mag. A story sells, sex sells, that's how magazines function. Women's mags are just as degrading, they photoshop their male models in the magazine and in Zoo the girls (who have given permission) are photoshopped and enlarged in areas too. Yes, I think Zoo is AS unrealistic as New Idea. 100%. Remember it's a magazine it should NEVER be read as an educational source, valid article of truth or anything else. It's like watching ACA- light entertainment by twisting fact.
Zoo can also be seen as a feminiatic piece. Encouraging empowerment etc. like Playboys original intention (which I can't be bothered going through all that) but Playboy was initially made to empower women.
Like 50 Shades of Gray, Harry Potter and The Magic School Bus, a magazine article should never be taken as fact. Mags are fiction! Get over it and don't be the gullible one to believe anything you read in a mag!
The real reason this magazine is shutting down is because we can access free porn on the internet with ease. Why would someone pay to see these pics?