I think dark hair looks better on most people since that's the color most people naturally have, so yeah it wouldn't hurt to see some natural brunettes.

I'm a natural blonde who wishes I could go dark but it makes my skin look too pale and my baby fine hair won't hold the darker pigments very long - I end up a dark ashy blonde. I love brunettes!

The Big Magazine Believe if they have someone on the cover that is more ethnic looking that they will sale less copies.

how about an asian woman for a change?

I don't mind. But then again, I'm blonde, so I'm biased

as a blonde whose always wanted to be brunette or redhead since i was about 3 years old, i just think this reflects what i see on a daily basis - blondes are EVERYWHERE and i don't get it.

I'm a natural blonde, but since most of the celebs on the magazines aren't, I'd love to see more "real" colors.

I read somewhere that women tend to go blonde during a recession.

as a brunette, i can honestly say i don't care.

also, seventeen has selena gomez on the cover of their september issue.

I don't think this really matters....

what's wrong with blonde models on the cover?I'm blonde, but I dont really care if there is a brunette on the cover..I guess that is just coincidence

Is that really a marketing scheme? If so, I really don't see the difference. Brunettes can be just as attractive as blondes and viceversa.

wat about all the other races, we are all beautiful, so show it

I don't mind at all! Blonde hair is beautiful, and isn't fair that some blonde's should not be on covers just because they have blonde hair instead of dark. The girls are the ones that are the stars, not their locks. And I'm brunette

Katy Perry just had a gorgeous Cosmo cover, and she has jet-black hair, and for me, I like to buy magazines with cover models similar to me, with short/dark hair colors. I think brunettes and brunette celebrities are gorgeous, but like previously mentioned, especially in these tough times for the mag industry, they wanna sell as easily as they can, and that's traditionally meant with blonde, non-ethnic women.

It sucks, because I have absolutely no interest in any of these covers because I find these celebrities so boring.

Okay - this seems like the opposite tactic that they might want to inact if they want to "sell" more magazines in this economy. People - or maybe I speak for myself, generally want to see variety including someone who looks like them every once in a while. Not a mass amount of one thing all the time! This seems to be common sense to me but perhaps I am wrong. They need to vary it not just amongst blonde and brunette but perhaps: Asian, Latino/a, African American...etc. the list can go on and on if you know what I mean...

Honestly, their hair color issue doesn't bother me; I care more about who graces the cover than their hair color. Though it would be nice to see more variation, in both hair-color and skin tone.

I don't care. If the person on the cover is intersting, then it makes me want to read the magazine more. If I don't like the cover-model, then I don't care to buy it. Hair colour has nothing to do with it for me.

Funny, I have been thinking that brunettes have been everywhere lately.

I'm okay with variety, as long as they don't put Megan Fox on the cover.

It would be nice if models were on the cover instead of celebrities. I get tired of the same recycled celebrities gracing the various covers. Miley "The Redneck" Cyrus on Elle was atrocious. I wouldn't even choose her for a Teen Vogue cover. And, I totally agree w/ the previous poster, Megan Fox looks and behaves like an escort. It is even worse when she opens her mouth. About the only thing she belongs on is an Eros ad.