J. Crew recently unveiled its collaboration with The New Yorker. The rollout included a video with the magazine’s creative director Nicholas Blechman discussing why the look of the magazine has stayed mostly untouched all these years, and shots of Krithika Varagur and Emily Sundberg wearing stuff from the collection while noshing at S&P. The collection includes a boat and tote, a striped oxford with Eustace Tilley on the pocket, and some cute stuff for kids that even had me going, “Awwww.” I don’t know if I would have felt that way before I became a dad, but now I find myself wondering if Lulu needs a shirt that just says “Talk of the Town.”
At this point, it seems like only publications with “New York” in the name work. The New York Times had the shirt with Highsnobiety that sold out before I could admit I wanted one, and I think I personally exercised great restraint not buying the New York mag varsity jacket that Only NY put out a few years ago (please clap), but I just can’t see a Boston Globe or Washington Post collection with some brand doing as well. I mean maybe I’m wrong, but it’s highly likely I’m in the small minority that would love to see some Chicago Tribune merch collection with Mike Royko or Gene Siskel’s black and white headshots on t-shirts. As for the old stuff, Jean Seberg wearing a New York Herald Tribune shirt in Breathless is so iconic that once or twice every summer I see some 20-something walking around Manhattan wearing some bootleg version they likely found on Etsy since the newspaper folded in 1966.
While it’s no doubt aimed at people who want to let you know they read The New Yorker, I appreciate the collection nailed the tongue-in-cheek attitude the magazine was founded on. And if you go through enough older copies, you’ll generally find that the merch they used to sell themselves was often unserious and sometimes silly. It works. I’m surprised to say that, but some of these things have left me scratching my head. The New York Review of Books x Rachel Comey collection, for instance. If I saw somebody using the tote on the Upper West Side because they ran out of Zabar’s bags, then that would make sense. But beyond that I couldn’t totally understand the connection.
Some magazines get what works for their audience. I think Harper’s understands that low-key works. Very understated shirts and hats, while the tote bag “Harper’s Index” tote is fun. Racquet magazine often has the best new drops, and wearing a shirt that says “Tennis Whore” when you’re planning to argue with people over public court time is always good for a laugh. The Paris Review always has good stuff, and the way Monocle blends their own products in with specifically-curated brands on their shop site has always seemed really smart to me, especially for a magazine that is designed to look like it’s part of a lifestyle, and not just a lifestyle publication.
But the state of media swag is actually pretty bad and always has been. Sure, Spy had some cool shirts back in the day, and I recall seeing some cool New York Observer shirts floating around before Jared Kushner took it over and ruined the paper, but it always felt like that stuff was either made to generate a few extra bucks or as promotional giveaways. Whatever the case, there is always too much thought or hardly any at all put into media swag, and it’s the latter that’s usually better. Check out this shot from the 2018 documentary Breslin and Hamill: Deadline Artists. It’s from 1997, but I’m assuming the New York Post sweatshirt is at least five-ten years older than when the picture is taken:
No frills and in red. That’s bold. Nobody was going to buy this damn thing, and that’s what made it so fun. The only people who wore them with pride were the journalists who worked for the paper, and tabloid writers have never exactly been known for their great style choices. And that’s why the old Post sweatshirt is so perfect: it wasn’t meant for style. The New Yorker x J. Crew thing works for what it is, but true media swag is dead. Everything is a collab now.