Have you ever been really excited about something that was going to happen, and then when the day came it just did not live up to expectations?
A couple of months ago I was contacted by Selvedge magazine because they wanted to use the information I’d gathered about the Picasso for White Stag line, and they wanted to use one of my illustrations. I’m a big fan of the magazine, and I’ve written about it in the past, so I was as pleased as can be that they wanted to use my work, so I readily agreed. I knew there was to be no compensation and I was okay with that. Just having my name and web address in the magazine was enough for me.
Over the weekend I got an image file from the magazine for me to post on my website. The Picasso for White Stag article is in the section headed “Need to Know”.
Now I do realize that I’ve written six blog posts on this special line, and that in one short column there was no way to tell the entire story. I’m actually fine with what was written about the history behind the line. What bothers me is how the first paragraph makes it sound like Walmart was somehow involved in this project. While it is true that in 2012, White Stag is sold through Walmart, it was not true in 1963 when this project happened. Am I wrong in reading it that way?
I’m also bugged about the credit line at the bottom of the article. Walmart had nothing at all to do with the information in this article, and if you do a search for White Stag on the Walmart.com site, all you get is a listing of the clothing that is made for Walmart under that brand name. Maybe they felt that a mention of the Walmart site was in order because Walmart owns the White Stag name.
I suppose that in the end I don’t have a lot to complain about, as they did not have to give me any credit at all. The information they used all came from a 1963 New York Herald Tribune column by Eugenia Sheppard which I mentioned, but that is readily available on the web. And the illustration was not from my site; it is the work on which the White Stag design was based.
So there it is. The Vintage Traveler is mentioned in my favorite magazine and that’s a good thing.
All illustrations copyright and courtesy of Selvedge
The Walmart credit would bug me too! But congratulations for getting a mention in your favourite magazine.
…really interested to read this. there are two picasso for white stag items in an exhibition here http://www.ftmlondon.org/ right now!
Cynthia, that is quite interesting! And thanks for the link to your blog, which I really like.
…well that’s really kind of you to say. i came across you via the VFG tweets…and i’m totally in awe!
Congrats on the piece, Lizzie! The Walmart bit just seems…bizarre. Maybe they thought it would be attention-grabbing somehow? As if Picasso designing for clothing isn’t exciting enough. Sheesh. If they had to mention Walmart at all, it seems that it should read “…a budget sportswear manufacturer that currently sells their range via Walmart.”
But still–big congrats on the piece!
Yes, it does read like Picasso designed for Walmart. What an odd way choice.
Don’t get me started on magazines making a pig’s ear out of information sent and items loaned… Tatler borrowed some of my Rayne shoes for an article on Edward Rayne for the jubilee issue, it just never happened and the photo of a shoe was put in an article on dressing like the Queen with a web address that doesn’t exist!
Personally I’d write a letter to the editor asking them to clear that up. Reputable publications in general want to give their readers the best information possible. It’s worth a shot, I think.
Yes, I do plan to write to her about it. Unfortunately, by the time the pdf of the page was emailed to me, the magazine had already gone to print.
Oh no Lizzie, it does read ‘wrong’ to me as well. We’re talking Picasso, vintage, fabric, designs, collaborations etc, NOT Walmart. And does Walmart even need a plug here? OY! Oh the flip side, linkage is good, especially in your fav mag! Congrats, I think, yeah Congrats!
Love it! You read my feelings exactly, Pam!
I didn’t read it the way you did, however I can see how someone could read it that way. It is always upsetting when articles aren’t perfectly clear. I am upset by the notion that Wal-Mart is mentioned so prominently here, including a link! The idea that White Stag is now being sold at Wal-Mart is a black mark on the White Stag name. For me, and Portlanders alike (The building which housed the company is still known as The White Stage building, even though know it is owned and used by the University of Oregon and “White Stag” no longer reads in lighted letters inside the Oregon shaped sign. In 1997 it changed to “Made in Oregon”, and when the university acquired the building they wanted it to read “University of Oregon” but the city threw a fit, and it now reads “Portland Oregon”), White Stag was synonymous with quality skiwear and sportswear, however now the idea of it being sold at Wal-Mart (a company known for wretched quality, among other things) is simply sickening.
But like you said, taking the bad with the good…it is fantastic to see your name in print and congrats!
I’m so glad that at least some people are not going to make that connection. I suspect that you used your own knowledge of the brand when reading the article, as did I when I first read through it. Then it was, like, “WHAT??”
Yes, I also hate that the brand name lives on at Walmart.
Catalina is also now sold at Walmart.
OMG! You have got to be kidding me! That’s horrible!