Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Let's go shopping!

Sales period after Xmas is finished and I have some questions for you... did you buy lots of things just because they were cheaper than usual ? or did you just buy things you are sure you are going to wear? I think if I did a survey, probaby 95% would choose the first option, isn't it true?

Well, I love starting my day wearing something new, but I hate going shopping on a Saturday afternoon! Why? Because you end up spending your free time in a place full of people where the only thing you are sure of is that you are going to waste a lot of time queuing for everything: for a parking space, for you turn in the changing rooms, or to pay for what you bought...!

Nowadays, a lot of people choose another option, i.e. going shopping online by visiting different webpages where you can buy many different items that later on are deliveried at your door and what is best without waiting or queues! Have you ever tried it? You can even shop online in the same places you usually go shopping. Have a look to the following links:

Topshop

Mango Outlet

Harrod's online

Want to shop safe?

How do you choose the things you normally buy? Do you just go to a shop and get something you like? or do you buy something you have already seen somewhere else, for example, a fashion magazine? If so, do you usually buy fashion magazines? or do you sometimes have a look to them when given the opportunity? As you know, you can visit them online, so have a look:

Top 10 fashion magazines (Vogue, Elle, In-style, Glamour...)

Fashion Victims Magazine

What's your favourite magazine? Maybe Vogue? Well, I don't know, anyway, watch the following videos from a CNN's programme called Revealed where the editor of Vogue Paris takes you behind the scenes of one of the world's most glamorous magazines (March 09).

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



If you liked the documentary, read more about her and her work in the following links:

French Vogue to tighten its belt. (cnn.com)

Roitfeld: American Vogue job 'not for me' (cnn.com)

No comments: