<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Magazineer &#187; Rampant Consumerism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://magazineer.com/tag/rampant-consumerism/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://magazineer.com</link>
	<description>For people who make, and love, magazines.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:00:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>How to Read Wired Revisited</title>
		<link>http://magazineer.com/howto/26</link>
		<comments>http://magazineer.com/howto/26#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Derek Powazek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[How To]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rampant Consumerism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wired]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magazineer.com/howto/26</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
In October 1995, Suck.com published a story by editor Joey Anuff (aka The Duke of URL) on How To Read Wired. In short, his advice was to take a hearty dollop of irony and then rip out all the back-to-back ads. 
Twelve years ago, according to Suck, Wired 3.09 contained 206 pages, of which 90 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src='http://magazineer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/wired-rip.jpg' alt='wired-rip.jpg' width="500" height="118" /></p>
<p>In October 1995, Suck.com published a story by editor Joey Anuff (aka The Duke of URL) on <a href="http://www.suck.com/daily/95/10/06/daily.html">How To Read <em>Wired</em></a>. In short, his advice was to take a hearty dollop of irony and then rip out all the back-to-back ads. </p>
<p>Twelve years ago, according to Suck, <em>Wired</em> 3.09 contained 206 pages, of which 90 were full-page ads. If you included the partial-page ads, the ad/content split was an even 50/50.</p>
<p>I decided to revisit Suck&#8217;s how-to with <em>Wired&#8217;s</em> <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/issue/15-12">December 2007 issue (15.12)</a>. It had 290 pages, of which 151 were full-page ads. Today, if you include the partial-page ads, the ad/content split is about 53/47.</p>
<p>If anything has changed, it&#8217;s the amount of product-driven content. This issue contained 18 pages in the front of the book that were devoted entirely to products (What&#8217;s Inside Lotrimin Ultra? Play Super Mario! Wow, Expensive Motorcycle!). Then there&#8217;s the Wish List, &#8220;a survey of the stuff we&#8217;re dying to get (and give) this holiday season,&#8221; which includes a Top Ten that lasts for 12 pages, plus 24 pages of some of the most blatant product placement I&#8217;ve ever seen in a magazine. Check out this spread and tell me if it&#8217;s an ad or not.</p>
<p><img src='http://magazineer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/wired-adornotad.jpg' alt='wired-adornotad.jpg' width="500" height="313" /></p>
<p>If you include all this product placement with the ads (where it belongs), it totals 198.5 pages, which is 68% of the magazine, leaving 91.5 pages of actual content. Sad.</p>
<p>Suck&#8217;s instructions still work like a charm. <em>Wired</em> is printed with perfect binding, and pages come out like butter. I removed any page that had ads on both sides. If <em>Wired</em> has changed at all, it&#8217;s that they&#8217;ve gotten better at avoiding this situation. Of the 151 full-page ads, only 88 were doubled-up, allowing me to tear out 44 pages. Still, what a difference.</p>
<p><img src='http://magazineer.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/wired-thin-inset.jpg' alt='wired-thin-inset.jpg' width="500" height="240" /></p>
<p><span class="ednote">Inset photo courtesy of <a href="http://www.suck.com/daily/95/10/06/daily.html">Suck.com</a>.</span></p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say this for <em><a href="http://wired.com/wired">Wired</a></em>: As much as they&#8217;ve let rampant consumerism take over the book, they still treat their Features section as sacrosanct. There&#8217;s nary an ad to be seen from Noah Sachtman&#8217;s &#8220;What Went Wrong&#8221; on how techo-optimism led us astray in Iraq (an amazing story, a shame it had such an ugly corner-to-corner design) to the end of Carlyle Adler&#8217;s &#8220;The Secrets of Silicon Valley&#8221; on thefunded.com&#8217;s pole vault over the walls of Sand Hill Road (with a beautiful angular text design and b&#038;w photos by Rainer Hosch). </p>
<p><em>Wired</em>, like the internet itself, has grown up a lot over the last 12 years, sometimes with the grace of the adolescent it was. But in web years, it&#8217;s about 150-years-old now, and far be it from us not to show our elders the respect they&#8217;ve earned.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s to ya&#8217;, old man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://magazineer.com/howto/26/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
