Wired magazine is 56.2% fullpage ads(cli.gs)
cli.gs
Wired magazine is 56.2% fullpage ads
http://cli.gs/TTbLLT
14 comments
Ah, suck.com -- my favorite web 1.0 relic.
Filler was the best webcomic before webcomics were cool.
http://www.suck.com/filler/archive/all.html
Filler was the best webcomic before webcomics were cool.
http://www.suck.com/filler/archive/all.html
Wow, I had no idea. I guess it seemed to me that at least in the past I was reading content that I could find easily. Now it just seems like every other page is an ad and I have to struggle to find the articles.
I've noticed the NYT has many more ads than it used to. My instincts tell me this is the death spasm of print. It means things are worse for the print media than even their current revenues suggest, because falling ad prices have been concealed by selling more ads. But they're going to run out of room for that soon.
Should we brainstorm saving the poor bastards? I'll start.
I would pay for content if:
1. It is personalized to my area of interest. It should be narrow enough to avoid unrelated stuff, wide enough to cover particaulr area compeletely such that I never need to go read another source for the same area. It should be de-duped. I hate dups.
2. All references and facts are properly attributed and cited. The moment I see "scientists found that 30% of..." I cancel my subscription without hesitation.
3. Non-factual pieces (opinions) are from well-known experts. At least there should be a credibility trail behind those people.
4. Content is peer reviewed. If there is a stretch somewhere, I want to know about it.
5. Content is short and to the point. I have short attention span and not much time.
6. Conflicts of interest and biases should be apparent.
For example Hardward Business Review is doing a reasonably god job on 2, 3, 6 and somtimes 5.
HN is pretty good with #1 (except dupes which are pretty bad).
I would pay for content if:
1. It is personalized to my area of interest. It should be narrow enough to avoid unrelated stuff, wide enough to cover particaulr area compeletely such that I never need to go read another source for the same area. It should be de-duped. I hate dups.
2. All references and facts are properly attributed and cited. The moment I see "scientists found that 30% of..." I cancel my subscription without hesitation.
3. Non-factual pieces (opinions) are from well-known experts. At least there should be a credibility trail behind those people.
4. Content is peer reviewed. If there is a stretch somewhere, I want to know about it.
5. Content is short and to the point. I have short attention span and not much time.
6. Conflicts of interest and biases should be apparent.
For example Hardward Business Review is doing a reasonably god job on 2, 3, 6 and somtimes 5.
HN is pretty good with #1 (except dupes which are pretty bad).
Within YC we often brainstorm about the future of journalism, but it is more in the spirit of killing the existing players than saving them. History suggests that is the right way to frame the question. Companies as deeply entrenched in obsolete habits as most current print media companies tend not to survive major shifts like the arrival of the Internet.
So instead of asking "How do you fix the NYT?" I'd ask "How would you kill the NYT?" Notice how much more scope you have for new answers there. If you're trying to fix them, you're implicitly constrained to make something like a newspaper. If you're trying to kill them, all you have to do is make something their advertisers prefer; that could be practically anything.
So instead of asking "How do you fix the NYT?" I'd ask "How would you kill the NYT?" Notice how much more scope you have for new answers there. If you're trying to fix them, you're implicitly constrained to make something like a newspaper. If you're trying to kill them, all you have to do is make something their advertisers prefer; that could be practically anything.
"Within YC we often brainstorm about the future of journalism"
There's probably a good mailing list on this topic. It seems like all the most intelligent discussion on the net takes place on secret mailing lists. The problem is that to find out where this discussion is taking place you'd really have to email a bunch of wonkish j-school types.
(And if anyone knows where people are discussing this, send me a note.)
There's probably a good mailing list on this topic. It seems like all the most intelligent discussion on the net takes place on secret mailing lists. The problem is that to find out where this discussion is taking place you'd really have to email a bunch of wonkish j-school types.
(And if anyone knows where people are discussing this, send me a note.)
As a j-school graduate, I can promise you not much of interest is being said on the topic there.
Newspapers, according to my former classmates working at them and people I meet at industry events, seem to still be run by people over 45, who for the most part think they'll be able to sneak out the backdoor just before the whole thing falls apart.
As I said in another thread, I'm here in Chicago trying to figure out how to kill off the local papers. After months wasted spent working on features and design and stuff that doesn't really matter if you don't have a plan, I've started calling up companies that advertise in local neighborhood papers and meeting with them. Met with three on Thursday. I'm making this up as I go along but here's what I more or less was asking:
1. Who are you trying to reach? 2. How are you doing it now? 3. What works well about that approach? 4. What's not working well for you?
Pretty basic stuff, right?
Here's what I'm learning so far:
1. Small neighborhood businesses (think of 37Signals Italian restaurant analogy) are advertising in weekly neighborhood papers like this one: http://www.hpherald.com/
They're paying about $250-300 for a 4 inch square ad that runs in the paper and on the web....which is a static PDF (!) that gets updated once a week. A back of napkin calculation following a look through that paper leads me to believe they're selling 8-12k in ads in it each week.
The businesses tell me this tool is prohibitively expensive and don't like that you can't measure its results.
Now, I asked them what they'd rather have, and they tried to pitch me on some kind of online coupon setup, where people could print off coupons and the businesses pay me each month based on how many coupons they tally up. This seems like a suckers game.
But a few ideas I'm toying with that could be better for them:
1. A daily neighborhood e-mail. They would be paying to reach X inboxes and could measure click-thru's using e-mail tools. Each e-mail would have a short article on something cool in the neighborhood, a la Daily Candy and extensive upcoming event listings (more on that below). Once you get enough of a subscriber base, then you start publishing the content to the web as well to rack in the pageviews and let readers connect.
2. Stepping in as their go-to guy to manage their adwords/CPC campaigns. This would be a lot less fun, but is a direction worth considering. Some of these little restaurants could be well served from getting listed high for certain searches and getting optimized on Google Maps, for example.
Other observation that I'm still trying to make sense of:
The people I'm meeting with say they'd like a place to find neighborhood events.
As a guy who hangs out on Hacker News, I am aware of going.com, eventful.com, upcoming, craigslist and all manner of event sites. Yelp, The Onions new decider.com site, all sorts of people are doing them.
And yet these advertisers had never heard of any of them and the people at the community groups said they wanted a decent online neighborhood calendar.
Which got me thinking that maybe a Garysguide.org-style events site for neighborhood events could play well. Start with just a few neighborhoods with loud identities and own them, get known as the place to go to see what's happening in those hoods. Perhaps this would be the web-half of the daily newsletter.
Anyway, the future of journalism conversation is fascinating. I'd be interested in any suggestions or observations from the peanut gallery on here. As I said, I'm making this up as I go along. A network of cheap, scalable, interesting neighborhood event + news sites seems like something that might be attractive if you can pull in the local eyeballs.
Thoughts?
As for Wired's advertising/editorial ratio, FWIW I just asked my friends working at magazines about it and they say that the ideal ratio is 40% ads and 60% editorial. I'm looking around online for some backup on that front and not finding much to be honest, but that's what they're teaching at j-school on the subject. So Wired's probably hurting if they're over 50% ads.
Newspapers, according to my former classmates working at them and people I meet at industry events, seem to still be run by people over 45, who for the most part think they'll be able to sneak out the backdoor just before the whole thing falls apart.
As I said in another thread, I'm here in Chicago trying to figure out how to kill off the local papers. After months wasted spent working on features and design and stuff that doesn't really matter if you don't have a plan, I've started calling up companies that advertise in local neighborhood papers and meeting with them. Met with three on Thursday. I'm making this up as I go along but here's what I more or less was asking:
1. Who are you trying to reach? 2. How are you doing it now? 3. What works well about that approach? 4. What's not working well for you?
Pretty basic stuff, right?
Here's what I'm learning so far:
1. Small neighborhood businesses (think of 37Signals Italian restaurant analogy) are advertising in weekly neighborhood papers like this one: http://www.hpherald.com/
They're paying about $250-300 for a 4 inch square ad that runs in the paper and on the web....which is a static PDF (!) that gets updated once a week. A back of napkin calculation following a look through that paper leads me to believe they're selling 8-12k in ads in it each week.
The businesses tell me this tool is prohibitively expensive and don't like that you can't measure its results.
Now, I asked them what they'd rather have, and they tried to pitch me on some kind of online coupon setup, where people could print off coupons and the businesses pay me each month based on how many coupons they tally up. This seems like a suckers game.
But a few ideas I'm toying with that could be better for them:
1. A daily neighborhood e-mail. They would be paying to reach X inboxes and could measure click-thru's using e-mail tools. Each e-mail would have a short article on something cool in the neighborhood, a la Daily Candy and extensive upcoming event listings (more on that below). Once you get enough of a subscriber base, then you start publishing the content to the web as well to rack in the pageviews and let readers connect.
2. Stepping in as their go-to guy to manage their adwords/CPC campaigns. This would be a lot less fun, but is a direction worth considering. Some of these little restaurants could be well served from getting listed high for certain searches and getting optimized on Google Maps, for example.
Other observation that I'm still trying to make sense of:
The people I'm meeting with say they'd like a place to find neighborhood events.
As a guy who hangs out on Hacker News, I am aware of going.com, eventful.com, upcoming, craigslist and all manner of event sites. Yelp, The Onions new decider.com site, all sorts of people are doing them.
And yet these advertisers had never heard of any of them and the people at the community groups said they wanted a decent online neighborhood calendar.
Which got me thinking that maybe a Garysguide.org-style events site for neighborhood events could play well. Start with just a few neighborhoods with loud identities and own them, get known as the place to go to see what's happening in those hoods. Perhaps this would be the web-half of the daily newsletter.
Anyway, the future of journalism conversation is fascinating. I'd be interested in any suggestions or observations from the peanut gallery on here. As I said, I'm making this up as I go along. A network of cheap, scalable, interesting neighborhood event + news sites seems like something that might be attractive if you can pull in the local eyeballs.
Thoughts?
As for Wired's advertising/editorial ratio, FWIW I just asked my friends working at magazines about it and they say that the ideal ratio is 40% ads and 60% editorial. I'm looking around online for some backup on that front and not finding much to be honest, but that's what they're teaching at j-school on the subject. So Wired's probably hurting if they're over 50% ads.
Hyperlocal is exactly the way to go. On-line communities are a small fraction of real world communities. Why not set up a platform that includes basic email, calendar, and events info. The hard part is getting folks on the ground to contribute - both content and their email addresses. You could support a few full-time editors and canvass the neighborhoods. The technology would seem to be straightforward but the hard part is those personal connections.
Here in New Hampshire I'm shocked we still get these weekly advertising booklets of local businesses. They're completely free of content - 100% ads. And yet we get one every week in the mail. Someone has to have a viable business to keep churning those out. Yet, the advertisers have no estimate of ROI and costs would seem to be pretty high to make and distribute.
Here in New Hampshire I'm shocked we still get these weekly advertising booklets of local businesses. They're completely free of content - 100% ads. And yet we get one every week in the mail. Someone has to have a viable business to keep churning those out. Yet, the advertisers have no estimate of ROI and costs would seem to be pretty high to make and distribute.
"... As I said in another thread, I'm here in Chicago trying to figure out how to kill off the local papers. ..."
A good description of http://www.everyblock.com/
A good description of http://www.everyblock.com/
Mentioned below!
"... A good description of http://www.everyblock.com/ ... Mentioned below! ..."
Thanks, didn't see that.
Thanks, didn't see that.
I have a friend with whom I've enjoyed discussing this very topic.
One interesting remark he made: the way people consume "news" will likely change in a fundamental way. Traditionally, the unit of news has been the article. This approach worked well for print and has been widely adopted online as well. Perhaps the future of journalism will be the abandonment of the article, focusing instead on a more concise approach that delivers rapid-fire, credible, news.
One interesting remark he made: the way people consume "news" will likely change in a fundamental way. Traditionally, the unit of news has been the article. This approach worked well for print and has been widely adopted online as well. Perhaps the future of journalism will be the abandonment of the article, focusing instead on a more concise approach that delivers rapid-fire, credible, news.
You just described the Adrian Holovaty thesis. http://holovaty.com/
He's the Django co-creator, gypsy guitar-playing developer of Everyblock.com
His big idea is that reporters have been gathering all this data for years.....and organizing it in the worst, least helpful format ever, the "text blob." What he's doing with Everyblock is the same thing Google's been doing since day 1, converting text blobs into useful, actionable, structured data that you can reassemble into graphs, maps, interactive features, or articles if need be.
He's certainly onto something. My question is whether that's going to completely blot out narrative journalism. My guess is that people who like narrative journalism are going to keep liking it while the many many people who never cared and who just read the headlines anyway will flock to Google News, sites like this and anything else that gives them something "worse" than narrative journalism but "good enough" to attract their eyeballs.
Note: I did not comment on my own comment. For some reason user jaydub deleted his comment as I was responding to it.
He's the Django co-creator, gypsy guitar-playing developer of Everyblock.com
His big idea is that reporters have been gathering all this data for years.....and organizing it in the worst, least helpful format ever, the "text blob." What he's doing with Everyblock is the same thing Google's been doing since day 1, converting text blobs into useful, actionable, structured data that you can reassemble into graphs, maps, interactive features, or articles if need be.
He's certainly onto something. My question is whether that's going to completely blot out narrative journalism. My guess is that people who like narrative journalism are going to keep liking it while the many many people who never cared and who just read the headlines anyway will flock to Google News, sites like this and anything else that gives them something "worse" than narrative journalism but "good enough" to attract their eyeballs.
Note: I did not comment on my own comment. For some reason user jaydub deleted his comment as I was responding to it.
[deleted]
"... So instead of asking "How do you fix the NYT?" I'd ask "How would you kill the NYT?" ..."
One model I've noticed is Dave Winer.
A while ago he signed up for official "Press accreditation" ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dave+winer+accreditation then drove around attending newsworthy events for the recent US elections. Write-ups, taking photos ~ http://flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/2796517333/ and occasionally posting stories to unconventional methods (twitter & http://politics.newsjunk.com/ ) and finally traditional outlets ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-winer/first-video-of-joe-...
So the idea of online writers & thinkers (bloggers) becoming Press accredited, interviewing and recording news stories (twitter, blog, flickr and mp3) and finally to commercial news sources using various technologies is already happening. Totally side stepping the NYT in the process. The only problem is it just doesn't scale yet. And I don't see a recognised "authoritative" outlet.
One model I've noticed is Dave Winer.
A while ago he signed up for official "Press accreditation" ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?q=dave+winer+accreditation then drove around attending newsworthy events for the recent US elections. Write-ups, taking photos ~ http://flickr.com/photos/scriptingnews/2796517333/ and occasionally posting stories to unconventional methods (twitter & http://politics.newsjunk.com/ ) and finally traditional outlets ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-winer/first-video-of-joe-...
So the idea of online writers & thinkers (bloggers) becoming Press accredited, interviewing and recording news stories (twitter, blog, flickr and mp3) and finally to commercial news sources using various technologies is already happening. Totally side stepping the NYT in the process. The only problem is it just doesn't scale yet. And I don't see a recognised "authoritative" outlet.
How does he pay the bills? I see him online all over the place. He's everywhere. This approach is really not so different from being a magazine writer. You write for whoever wants your stuff and get paid per peice. The only difference here is that Winer's not getting paid, unless he's running ads that go with his articles across all these outlets.
A personal ad network. That's kind of interesting. So someone would pay to get an ad that runs alongside anything Winer writes across the HuffPo, newsjunk and anywhere else, latching onto his brand explicitly.
A personal ad network. That's kind of interesting. So someone would pay to get an ad that runs alongside anything Winer writes across the HuffPo, newsjunk and anywhere else, latching onto his brand explicitly.
"... How does he (Winer) pay the bills? ..."
"... This approach is really not so different from being a magazine writer. You write for whoever wants your stuff and get paid per peice. The only difference here is that Winer's not getting paid, unless he's running ads that go with his articles across all these outlets. ..."
Stringers?
Winer has written about making money with technology, writing here ~ http://www.scripting.com/davenet/2001/02/13/howToMakeMoneyOn... here ~ http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/12.html#howToMakeMoneyOnThe... and the latest here ~ http://www.podtech.net/home/894/gnomedex-how-to-make-money-o...
"... A personal ad network. That's kind of interesting. So someone would pay to get an ad that runs alongside anything Winer writes across the HuffPo, newsjunk and anywhere else, latching onto his brand explicitly. ..."
Adverts on websites are history ~ http://www.podtech.net/home/894/gnomedex-how-to-make-money-o...
"... This approach is really not so different from being a magazine writer. You write for whoever wants your stuff and get paid per peice. The only difference here is that Winer's not getting paid, unless he's running ads that go with his articles across all these outlets. ..."
Stringers?
Winer has written about making money with technology, writing here ~ http://www.scripting.com/davenet/2001/02/13/howToMakeMoneyOn... here ~ http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/12.html#howToMakeMoneyOnThe... and the latest here ~ http://www.podtech.net/home/894/gnomedex-how-to-make-money-o...
"... A personal ad network. That's kind of interesting. So someone would pay to get an ad that runs alongside anything Winer writes across the HuffPo, newsjunk and anywhere else, latching onto his brand explicitly. ..."
Adverts on websites are history ~ http://www.podtech.net/home/894/gnomedex-how-to-make-money-o...
Ironically that Google search you link to now shows your exact post as the top result ;-)
And yet, only half of 18-29 year olds receive their news from the internet, if you consider the election a reliable guide. Of 50-64 year olds, only 36% get their news on-line.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf
The problem would seem to be that we're still in the middle of a generational shift. For instance, I grew up reading newspapers and so I still value the NY Times. It could be another ten or twenty years before they're facing anything like death until the majority of their prime demographics have shifted away to other outlets.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf
The problem would seem to be that we're still in the middle of a generational shift. For instance, I grew up reading newspapers and so I still value the NY Times. It could be another ten or twenty years before they're facing anything like death until the majority of their prime demographics have shifted away to other outlets.
Only half? That is a gigantc number of people and it is growing every day.
And still there is no great news outlet that truly understands how to use the internet. It is a wide open opportunity.
And still there is no great news outlet that truly understands how to use the internet. It is a wide open opportunity.
Uh, what does that mean? How should they be using the internet?
I mean, traditional news outlets like CNN and New York Times have not significantly changed the way they deliver news online compared to newspapers or television. And I think there's a lot of room for innovation.
Except for CNN, no one has really begun to embrace the immediacy of the internet. And even CNN has done a very poor job; it takes them an hour or more to post breaking news on CNN.com sometimes.
Except for CNN, no one has really begun to embrace the immediacy of the internet. And even CNN has done a very poor job; it takes them an hour or more to post breaking news on CNN.com sometimes.
So speed? They're not fast enough to post stuff? Ok.
What else?
I ask because I genuinely want to know what you think is lacking.
What else?
I ask because I genuinely want to know what you think is lacking.
I did not suggest saving any particular newspaper, instead I suggested saving the idea of professional journalism.
As a user I may benefit from the efforts of someone whos full-time job is to find good, relevant news, write well and do thoughtful analysis and discussion. Some of the newspapers used to play this role, but their economics is busted. The default assumtion here seems to be that professional journalism will die as well, and I would like to challenge this assumption. If it is to survive, which form would it take? What does it take to make people pay for their news?
As a user I may benefit from the efforts of someone whos full-time job is to find good, relevant news, write well and do thoughtful analysis and discussion. Some of the newspapers used to play this role, but their economics is busted. The default assumtion here seems to be that professional journalism will die as well, and I would like to challenge this assumption. If it is to survive, which form would it take? What does it take to make people pay for their news?
I would never pay to read any author who described their writing as content.
Which is pretty much why I never read the paper or magazines anymore. Every time I pick one up the only thing I can think about is the fact that the articles were only written to sell advertising. Newspapers aren't designed to enlighten you, they're designed to sell dildos and tofu.
Which is pretty much why I never read the paper or magazines anymore. Every time I pick one up the only thing I can think about is the fact that the articles were only written to sell advertising. Newspapers aren't designed to enlighten you, they're designed to sell dildos and tofu.
7. I can get it in a paper form (or similar) that is safe to stuff in a bag and read on the beach? (and the news isn't stuff that gets out of date in a second).
I don't understand the online "magazine" concept - not sure how it translates.
I find wired nice airport/toilet reading.
I don't understand the online "magazine" concept - not sure how it translates.
I find wired nice airport/toilet reading.
That's what iPhone is for.
Well maybe kindle, but neither iphone or kindle are disposable.
Oddly enough, I was reading my copy today and was thinking that I much prefer print ads to online ads. I actually enjoy bumping into things I would not normally see. My only gripe are the ads that try to disguise themselves as editorial material and have to have the word "Advertisement" on the top of the page. Online, I ignore ads and the ones I do notice are rarely interesting.
So what we have in the first place is major corporations which are parts of even bigger conglomerates. Now, like any other corporation, they have a product which they sell to a market. The market is advertisers -- that is, other businesses. What keeps the media functioning is not the audience. They make money from their advertisers. And remember, we're talking about the elite media. So they're trying to sell a good product, a product which raises advertising rates. And ask your friends in the advertising industry. That means that they want to adjust their audience to the more elite and affluent audience. That raises advertising rates. So what you have is institutions, corporations, big corporations, that are selling relatively privileged audiences to other businesses.
Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you'd predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.
Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don't have that point of view they're likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It's not the way institutions function. So they'll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they're dysfunctional, they're dysfunctional to the institution itself.
http://www.archive.org/details/NoamChomskyNoamChomskyManufac...
Well, what point of view would you expect to come out of this? I mean without any further assumptions, what you'd predict is that what comes out is a picture of the world, a perception of the world, that satisfies the needs and the interests and the perceptions of the sellers, the buyers and the product.
Now there are many other factors that press in the same direction. If people try to enter the system who don't have that point of view they're likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all, no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self-destruct. It's not the way institutions function. So they'll work to exclude or marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they're dysfunctional, they're dysfunctional to the institution itself.
http://www.archive.org/details/NoamChomskyNoamChomskyManufac...
Um, did anyone notice what month it is?
If you had a fixed advertising budget for the year, wouldn't you spend most of it in the November and December issues?
Almost every magazine and newspaper gets really fat at the end of the year.
If you had a fixed advertising budget for the year, wouldn't you spend most of it in the November and December issues?
Almost every magazine and newspaper gets really fat at the end of the year.
Coincidentally, our new issue of Wired arrived today and I suggested that they weren't at risk of going under so long as at least 50% of the magazine is ads. At least until people stop buying it because of that.
Here's a pic of mine of the pages with ads on both sites in wired ripped out: http://flickr.com/photos/ikirigin/2097211221/
I'd like to do this with a scalpel to compare the height.
I'd like to do this with a scalpel to compare the height.
I don’t have as much time as I used to, to do this, but I try to give the whole magazine a flip at least once, every month.
Blogger needs to take some time, to learn proper comma use, and then rethink this sentence.
Blogger needs to take some time, to learn proper comma use, and then rethink this sentence.
You're right, I went a little comma happy there. I fixed the sentence to read a little better.
On second read, my comment seems a bit snarky. No offense intended.
On the news-stands that I've checked, the more "high-end" a woman's magazine is, the greater the percentage of ad content.
The author noticed "after about a 3 month hiatus." If subscribers are not reading the magazine that is a pretty bad sign so why should we be surprised about all of the ads. I find it somewhat ironic that after 3 months of not making time to take a good look at the magazine the author is surprised that something has changed.
not really surprised here, back in the day when it was a 1/4" thick, I use to rip out all the ads that were front and back, then start reading it.
I wonder how long it's going to be before I start seeing ads in World of Warcraft or Eve... Never I hope...
In other news, Vogue magazine is 91% fullpage ads.
Hey, it has! http://www.suck.com/daily/95/10/06/daily.html
"We studied issue 3.09 (the one with Arnold Schwarzenegger on its cover) and were not surprised to discover that of its 206 pages, 90 were full page ads. (If you include 1/2's, 1/4's, and pull-outs the ratio jumps to a clean 50/50 split.)"
Further analysis of Wired's ad/content ratio was done by the Magazineer in January -- http://magazineer.com/howto/26