The Queen Wants Kate Middleton to Wear Longer Skirts

The Queen Wants Kate Middleton to Wear Longer Skirts

We may love Kate Middleton's timeless wardrobe but the Queen wants her granddaughter-in-law to take it down a notch - literally.

According to the Daily Mail, Queen Elizabeth II has recently ordered a makeover (makeunder?) for the Duchess of Cambridge while she tours Australia and New Zealand in April.

As part of this new look, Prince George's mum will be wearing longer skirts, Indian gems which were gifted to the Royal Family in 1911 and more tiaras. (Yay! Tiaras!)

"This forms part of a deliberate move to shift the Duchess’s image from High Street to high end, timeless Royal elegance – without losing her freshness and informality," said the Mail.

The Queen has put her personal dresser, Angela Kelly, in charge of dressing the Duchess, who will be required to wear up to four outfits a day for the three-and-a-half week trip.

Designers who will be outfitting the Duchess Down Under include Kate favourites such as Alexander McQueen and Alice Temperley, who are designing bespoke gowns and day dresses.

The idea is for Kate to be be "more Royal than ever" and while we're sure the tiaras will definitely help with that, we're a bit doubtful that lowering her hemlines will make her more royal than she already is. (And she's pretty royal, you guys!)

While it's great that we're going to see the Duchess sport a ton of new designer outfits, we can't but question the reasoning behind this decision since, well, isn't the Queen kinda broke?

Oh well, let them eat McQueen!

Read More »

Why Facebook's 'Teen Exodus' Won't Do Real Damage

Why Facebook's 'Teen Exodus' Won't Do Real Damage

Recent headlines have depicted Facebook as the Internet version of a failed nightclub: Abandoned by pretty young things and invaded by middle-aged minivan owners, the once see-and-be-seen destination has begun a slow slide toward total irrelevance.

Three million teens have fled Facebook in three years, a report last week warned. Another from last year declared Facebook less relevant to teens than ever before. Facebook recently conceded that younger teens are less active now than they were -- a surefire sign, some seem to think, that matters are so dire even Mark Zuckerberg has stopped his sugarcoating.

But even if teens are abandoning Facebook -- and research by other firms suggests they aren't in any meaningful way -- the loss wouldn't do serious damage to the company, according to online advertising experts and researchers studying youth behavior.

Clark Fredricksen, a vice president at the market research group eMarketer, says he’s been inundated with questions about how badly a drop in teen usage hurts Facebook. "Ultimately,” he says, “the answer is it doesn’t.”

Whether teens hang out on Facebook or not, the company will have exactly what it needs to make money on them should they ever return: their identities and their preferences. Teens, like many others online, use Facebook profiles to sign in to services like Gilt Group and TripAdvisor, which can often feed salient personal details back to the ever-expanding Facebook data trove that makes advertisers salivate.

So Facebook would still have teens’ data flowing into its coffers, could still boast the only social network of its kind and reach, and would still have access to the audiences that are most prized by advertisers (a demographic that doesn’t resemble the typical Justin Bieber fan). As the teen heartthrobs of One Direction would say, “So, chill up/What you worry about?"

The doomsayers warn that if Facebook loses teens’ interest, it will forfeit an entire generation of would-be members; be deprived of precious advertising dollars; and suffer a larger exodus as the young tastemakers lure parents and siblings to join them on the WhatsApps and Snapchats of the world.

That’s like saying supermarkets will fail because 15 year-olds get vending machines at school. Facebook serves a different purpose than the world’s more boutique social media services. Instagram may eat up time otherwise spent browsing photos on Facebook, but can’t replace it outright. (Facebook also owns Instagram, one of the top sites blamed for wooing away teens.)

The same qualities that make Facebook a turn off to teens -- its size, its emphasis on real identities, the presence of parents and the permanence of posts -- could be a draw when those same people graduate high school. They’ll have a desperate need to stalk cute sophomores in their BIO 101 lecture, or keep tabs on friends back home. And they'll really only have one way to do it: In the U.S., there’s no other social network that combines the same reach, emphasis on real names, messaging tools and life-scrapbooking function as Facebook.

“I don’t think that Facebook loses these teens forever,” says Mikołaj Jan Piskorski, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of A Social Strategy: How We Profit from Social Media. “These teens will come back because Facebook is a very helpful utility for them [later in life] -- it’s just not a helpful utility when they’re teens.”

Piskorski’s analogy is apt: Facebook is closer to conEdison than Studio 54. Like a utility, Facebook isn’t cool or all that fun, but we desperately need it and can’t avoid dealing with it once we exit our teens. Even the British high-schoolers who declared Facebook “dead and buried” in a recent survey acknowledged that Facebook beats Twitter and Instagram when it comes to core features, like tracking relationships, organizing parties and sharing photos.

A decline in “teenthusiasm” for Facebook wouldn’t necessarily chip away at the personal information Zuckerberg has on file. The company’s social sign-in tool, which lets you bypass site registrations by signing in with your Facebook accounts, ensures people are feeding details back to Facebook without opening its app or visiting its site. If you listen to a song on Spotify or follow a board on Pinterest, you’ll give Facebook some idea of what concert you’d buy tickets to, or the brand of couch you’re eyeing for your new place.

And all the advertising dollars Facebook would allegedly lose if teens disappear? “Most advertisers aren’t looking to reach teens,” says Fredricksen.

Instead, he explains, they’re eager to pitch the people who manage homes, have their own money to spend and are picking out products for the first time by themselves. In other words, people between 18 and 34 years old.

“From an advertiser standpoint, not having teens on Facebook isn’t really a big deal at all because advertisers tend to be looking at different groups than that,” he adds.

Karsten Weide, an analyst with the market research firm IDC, notes that attracting older individuals to Facebook may be unpalatable for teens, but it makes the social network "more attractive for advertisers, not less so.” “Essentially,” he wrote in an email, “they're moving from being the MTV of social networks to being the ABC of social networks."

Or maybe it's becoming both at once: As Baby Boomers and grandparents have gradually embraced Facebook, it’s remained ubiquitous among teens. According to a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center, 94 percent of social media-using teens have a Facebook account. And 81 percent say they use it more than any other profile. (Just 7 percent said the same for Twitter, the second most popular choice behind Facebook.)

Rather than teens fleeing Facebook because they're sick of it, it may be that Facebook has become so engrained, such an unbreakable habit, that it's boring.

“Facebook is almost like dial tone to teens," says Matt Britton, CEO of the youth marketing agency MRY. "It's something they just expect to be part of the Internet.”
Read More »

One Frightening Chart Shows What You Might Pay For Internet Once Net Neutrality Is Gone

A graphic making its rounds on the web this week offered a glimpse of what the Internet might look like if net neutrality disappears. The takeaway? Not good.

One Frightening Chart Shows What You Might Pay For Internet Once Net Neutrality Is Gone

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down an Federal Communications Commission order that required Internet service providers to abide by the rules of “net neutrality.” ISPs had previously been forced to treat all types of web traffic equally -- meaning providers couldn’t block some sites or speed up loading times for others. Tuesday's decision means corporations can now block or slow down loading times for pages they don’t like, or could charge businesses a fee to have their pages load more quickly -- or at all.

Now, consumers looking to get Internet access might be met with something like this hypothetical set of pricing options like this, pointed out by Buzzfeed earlier this week:


This graphic was created by Reddit user quink, who wanted to illustrate what happens if net neutrality disappears. Originally created when Comcast tried to appeal the FCC's right to enforce net neutrality in 2009, the graphic is experiencing a renaissance in relevance after the ruling this week.

Though the FCC could try to rewrite its rule or appeal the decision, in the meantime ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner Cable are free to make deals with companies promising quicker content delivery in exchange for payment -- essentially creating Internet "fast lanes" for wealthy companies and making their websites easier to access than those of nonprofits, activist groups and smaller competitors.

Quink's graphic shows web-based service offerings (offered by the fictional TELCO ADSL) that look suspiciously like cable bundles. Very, very basic Internet is offered for a "starter" price of $29.95, while popular sites are bundled together and offered as optional add-ons for $5 to $10. As costs add up, people in quink's world are left with tough choices -- choosing, for instance, between access to online marketplaces and access to the news.

As for smaller sites? In quink's hypothetical world without net neutrality, they're out of luck. Any sites outside the bundles might count towards a data cap, while sites in the bundles wouldn't, or small sites might just load really, really slowly.

Presumably, websites that want to be included in "bundles" would have to pay providers like TELCO for the privilege. It may sound crazy, but it's the future envisioned by experts who talk about what the end of net neutrality might mean for small businesses.

The really remarkable thing about quink's graphic, though, is how very much it looks like the current state of cable television. For an example, we pulled a screenshot of the current Time Warner Cable options for customers in Manhattan. Each subscription option contains a bundle of channels, like so:


"Information shouldn't become a luxury," Todd O’Boyle, program director of the liberal advocacy organization Common Cause, told The Huffington Post earlier this week. And yet it's clear that at least as far as the purveyors of cable television are concerned, information is a luxury -- and one that should be paid for. Those who subscribe to Time Warner Cable's expensive "Preferred TV" bundle get access to all the TV news channels, while subscribers to Time Warner's relatively bare-bones "Starter TV" bundle must content themselves with C-SPAN and Time Warner Cable News NY1.

Will the end of net neutrality see ISPs imitating cable companies? It seems likely, given that many ISPs already are cable companies.

The more pressing question is whether the FCC and the federal government will allow this to happen. Some commentators, like the Atlantic's Kevin Werbach, believe the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling will simply pave the way for better enforcement of net neutrality in the future. We certainly hope he's right.
Read More »

Aerie's Unretouched Ads 'Challenge Supermodel Standards' For Young Women

Aerie's Unretouched Ads 'Challenge Supermodel Standards' For Young Women

Looks like aerie is ready for its closeup -- its unretouched closeup.

aerie, American Eagle's sister store for lingerie, has launched aerie Real, a Spring 2014 ad campaign featuring all unairbrushed models. In a release on Friday, aerie announced that the ads are "challenging supermodel standards by featuring unretouched models in their latest collection of bras, undies and apparel."

Spotlighting models sans Photoshop is a powerful move that most fashion brands, not to mention fashion magazines, rarely make. (Notable exceptions, made all the more so due to their infrequency, include Marie Claire's 2010 cover with Jessica Simpson, Cate Blanchett on the cover of Intelligent Life in 2012 and Verily Magazine's total ban on all airbrushing.)

But aerie's decision to show its models in all their real, unretouched glory makes an even stronger statement because of who its customers are. The brand, founded in 2006, is aimed at the 15-21 year old demographic, meaning young women in high school and college. And it's widely held -- and proven by numerous studies and surveys -- that young women's sense of body confidence is so often influenced by the images of female beauty they see in media.

One ad campaign won't solve the complicated relationship between young women's self-esteems and images of women in media. But when a brand beloved by teen girls shows off its cute bras and undies on bodies with real rolls, lines and curves, it can certainly help.

Check out a few of the aerie Real photos below.




Read More »

Photographer Dishes About Prince William & Kate's 'Spontaneous Emotion'


When Kate Middleton and Prince William's official engagement photos hit the media in 2010, the world collectively swooned. After all, it was indisputable evidence that fairytales were real. Even the photographer was smitten.

Mario Testino, the man behind the shots, remembered that fateful shooting session with the royal couple during a recent conversation with The Telegraph. He had first met Kate in 2008, but he could tell that Will was "in love" and he "knew they would stay together." Naturally, Testino worked his magic when the time came to shoot them as an engaged couple two years later:

"I waited a long time, an hour or two, to make that picture perfect. But I wasn't totally satisfied. Then, when I'd finished the shoot, they were about to leave and they suddenly hugged in front of a radiator. I took my camera and that was the picture that ran everywhere -- it was spontaneous emotion ... you could see they were completely in love."

All together now: Awwwww! It's not hard to imagine Kate and Will engaging in an impromptu embrace -- they've single-handedly made the most convincing royal case for marrying for love. Every step of the way, from engagement announcement to official photos to the Royal Wedding, seemed more genuine and adorable than the last.

Let's relive it all, shall we?
Read More »

Diane Keaton's L'Oreal Ad Raises Eyebrows For Showing Star 'Ageless And Wrinkle-Free'

Diane Keaton's L'Oreal Ad Raises Eyebrows For Showing Star 'Ageless And Wrinkle-Free'

We were bowled over when we saw Diane Keaton take the stage at Sunday night's Golden Globes -- that suit! That hair! That glow! (Yeah, we've got a little bit of a crush.)

But immediately after Keaton was done accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award on Woody Allen's behalf, the Golden Globes cut to a commercial break with a L'Oreal ad starring none other than Diane Keaton... looking different than she did just one minute before, according to some viewers on Twitter. Some comments after L'Oreal's Age Perfect Glow Renewal Facial Oil ad ran:









There's no question that 68-year-old Keaton has awesome skin and a youthful glow -- that much was apparent to anyone watching her live at the Globes. But did L'Oreal make her even more youthful in its latest commercial? If so, the brand could find itself in trouble: Several makeup companies have had their ads banned after accusations they digitally modified their models to imply better results.

Watch the commercial below.

Read More »

Brooklyn has already won New York Fashion Week

It's official: Brooklyn has already won New York Fashion Week.


Brooklyn has already won New York Fashion Week

Alexander Wang announced that he will be staging his Feb. 8 runway show at the Brooklyn Navy Yard this season, thus launching a new era in which the outer borough has major industry cred. The top designer usually shows at Pier 94 in Manhattan at 5pm on Saturday, but he managed to switch times with Joseph Altuzarra so that he can close the day at 8:30pm.

Of course, the time shift was undoubtedly in anticipation of complaints -- it's hard enough schlepping around Manhattan during the hectic week, but asking editors and buyers to cross the East River? Unheard of. The fact that no one will be rushing to another show after should soften the blow. Luckily, Wang might just be the most highly-anticipated runway of New York Fashion Week, so we imagine there won't be too many folks declining to attend.

"We found this incredible space, and it corresponds very well to this season's creative concept," Wang told Women's Wear Daily via email about the Brooklyn venue, the Duggal Greenhouse.

Wang isn't the first designer to mix things up this season. Diane von Furstenberg. and Michael Kors have both opted to eschew the tents at Lincoln Center during Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week. Like Wang, von Furstenberg was looking for more creative freedom. "My decision is purely because of the anniversary year [of the wrap dress]," von Furstenburg told the New York Times. "I want to do something special."

While Wang has said that his venue shift is a one-time thing as of now, one thing is clear: Brooklyn has just become a major Fashion Week player. Better start saving up for that extra taxi fare...
Read More »

U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

U.S. Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Net Neutrality

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down the government's latest effort to require internet providers to treat all traffic the same and give consumers equal access to lawful content, a policy that supporters call net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission did not have the legal authority to enact the 2011 regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.

"Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates," Judge David Tatel said.

Although the three judge panel were unanimous about the outcome, one wrote separately that he would have gone even further in restricting the FCC's authority.

The FCC could appeal the ruling to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it could attempt to rewrite the regulations to satisfy the appeals court.

During the oral argument in September, Verizon's lawyer said the regulations violated the company's right to free speech and stripped control of what its networks transmit and how.

The eventual outcome of the dispute may determine whether internet providers can restrict some content by, for instance, blocking or slowing down access to particular sites or charging websites to deliver their content faster.
The FCC had no immediate comment on the ruling. Verizon also had no immediate comment.




Read More »

Fitbit, We are sorry..

Fitbit Apologizes To Customers Who've Experienced Skin Reactions

Fitbit, the company that makes wearable activity trackers, has apologized following widespread reports that its latest wrist-worn device has caused severe skin irritation for some owners.

In a statement sent to The Huffington Post on Tuesday evening, Fitbit said that the company is "sorry that even a few consumers have experienced these problems" with Force, its newest product. Fitbit encouraged people who experienced "any irritation" to stop wearing the $130 device, and said it has set up a dedicated email account for people to communicate directly with the company.

The Huffington Post interviewed more than a half-dozen people who said they experienced skin irritation they attributed to Force, a wristband that tracks distance, steps, stairs climbed, calories burned and sleep. Symptoms ranged from red, itchy skin to painful blisters that would ooze or bleed. Some Force owners said they sought medical care, and were prescribed prednisone and antibiotics.

A growing number of people who bought Force have taken to Fitbit's online forum to voice complaints, share experiences and upload photos of their irritated skin. Many also expressed frustration that Fitbit hasn't been more responsive.

By Tuesday, after Consumerist and The Huffington Post reported on the complaints, a Fitbit moderator who had responded to some owners in December, but fell silent for a couple of weeks after Christmas, again began to reply to people in the forum.

It is unclear what causes the irritation. Fitbit said it may be caused by an allergy to nickel, found in the stainless steel used in Force. Some of the people HuffPost interviewed said they had no known allergies and had worn metal watches and jewelry without any irritation for many years. Some who posted in the forum said they had worn Flex, Force's predecessor, which also contains traces of nickel, without any issue.

Fitbit did not respond to questions from The Huffington Post about the number of complaints it has received or how many devices may be affected.

Fitbit has said it will provide "immediate" refunds for people who bought Force, or they can exchange it for a different device.

Full statement form Fitbit:

We are looking into reports from a very limited number of Fitbit Force users who have been experiencing skin irritation, possibly as a result of an allergy to nickel, an element of surgical-grade stainless steel used in the device.
We suggest that consumers experiencing any irritation discontinue using the product and contact Fitbit at force@fitbit.com if they have additional questions. Customers may also contact Fitbit for an immediate refund or replacement with a different Fitbit product.

We are sorry that even a few consumers have experienced these problems and assure you that we are looking at ways to modify the product so that anyone can wear the Fitbit Force comfortably. We will continue to update our customers with the latest information.
Read More »

Nobody 'Likes' Your Status Updates Any More? Blame Facebook


Do your Facebook friends seem inactive? Notification numbers shrinking by the day?

It's not necessarily that your friends are bored by the itemized details of your life (but aggressive food Instagrammers shouldn't rule that out). It's possible your friends never had the opportunity to see your status updates in the first place, explains Derek Muller of Veritasium, an educational science channel on YouTube.

In the above video Muller explains that recent iterations of Facebook's newsfeed algorithm are making it harder and harder for your posts to get viewed. Muller suspects that the pared down newsfeeds are part of Facebook's larger monetization strategy. If you have content that you'd like to share and Facebook won't share it for free anymore, perhaps you'll be willing to pay to promote your status. Watch Muller's video for details.

Read More »