The Editorial Je Ne Sais Quoi

Across fashion, branding, and social media, one word appears everywhere: editorial.

Lately, it almost seems to carry a certain je ne sais quoi — that elusive quality the French use to describe something attractive yet difficult to define. If an image feels editorial, it is assumed to be more cultured, more thoughtful, somehow more valuable.

But why has editorial become such a desirable label? Why do brands, photographers, and even amateur creators strive to make their work appear editorial?

And perhaps the more strategic question: should everything aim to be editorial in the first place?

Image Source: Prada, 2020 Campaign

What Did “Editorial” Ever Mean?

Originally, editorial had nothing to do with a visual style.

It belonged to publishing. It required a point of view, a context, and a structure that gave meaning to images. It positioned fashion within culture rather than pushing products toward the viewer.

Editorial was never defined by how it looked, but by what it was trying to say.

Image Source: VOGUE Magazine

How The Term Lost Its Meaning

Over time, that structure disappeared, but the word remained.

Today, “editorial” is applied to everything from brand identities to restaurant menus to social media content. It no longer refers to a publishing context, but to a visual expectation.

What survived are its surface codes: ambiguity, restraint, distance.

What disappeared is its logic.

Image Source: VOGUE Russia

Why Everyone Wants It

Editorial suggests taste. It implies that something has been considered. Much like luxury itself operates, value is not declared, it is implied. But there is also a simpler ambition behind it.

People don’t just want editorial. They want their work to feel “like Vogue”. To sit within the same visual language, to carry the same cultural weight. Most of the time, it doesn’t hold.

Images: Loewe, FW22 & SS26 Campaigns

When Editorial Works — and When It Doesn’t

Editorial is not universally effective. It is conditionally powerful.

It works when a brand has a point of view strong enough to sustain distance. When meaning exists before the image. When ambiguity adds depth rather than confusion.

In a landscape saturated with direct messaging, editorial introduces distance. The brand does not appear to sell; it appears to express. That shift changes how the message is received.

Less pressure. More desire.

In these cases, editorial sharpens perception. It turns communication into positioning for the brand.

But without that foundation, editorial collapses into styling.

When brands adopt editorial codes without its way of thinking, they remove clarity without adding meaning. The result is neither expressive nor effective; just harder to read.

This is where most brands fail.

Editorial is treated as an upgrade, when in reality it is a trade-off. It exchanges clarity for interpretation. And that exchange only works when interpretation is valuable.

In categories built on immediacy such as food, retail or accessibility, this trade-off often breaks. A product that needs to be instantly understood should not be visually distanced from its function.

Not everything benefits from ambiguity.

When everything tries to look editorial, editorial stops differentiating. It becomes a default language.

And default languages do not create value.

Image Source: “Editorial Hamburger” & “Editorial Food Photography” (online visual research)

Should Everything Be Editorial? The Answer is No.

The desire to appear editorial reveals a deeper shift: audiences are no longer satisfied with pure promotion. They look for meaning, intention, and cultural relevance.

Editorial can provide that but only when it is used as a position, not a surface. It is not a visual filter. It is not a guarantee of quality. And it is not a universal strategy. Editorial is a choice.

And like any choice, it only works when it is made for the right reasons.

Image Source: W Magazine