[severe snippage of yet another astute observation]
The growth of FWW has been 'sideways' over the years. Once in a blue moon, the magazine shows a glimmer of its past.
It's like meeting up with an old girlfriend who has let herself go.... still has that 'look' that was so appealing years ago...but now only shows itself between beers # 6 and # 10.
But unlike that chance encounter with that old love, this one invades my house via a subscription. I read it when it shows up, but only because I paid for it. Seldom will I revisit an issue once I have scanned it for something that could have given me a woody.
Rolling Stone has changed a lot too, but it had to in order to stay abreast of the talents it covers. The industry changed, so did their coverage. That's legit, IMHO.
But FWW can't really attempt to follow that same path. It, instead, has followed trends it thinks will sell magazines. FWW tries to do the job of a Consumers Reports and in that capacity, I find it still very useful...'cept that I wish they'd get into more detail.
I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look like they're multiplying verbs.
I like that gradual in-depth-getting-deeper approach.
I think FWW should do some of that... aside from a certain Poly being shiny.. tell us why. They could go in-depth till they lose us... It's just too frickin' shallow these days.
But it's still a pretty nice production... and I will renew.
FHB has no equal. Period. I find that mag very useful.
But... let's face it... what has really spoiled me has been the LV catalogues...now THERE's a source for stimulation. Compared to that, FWW reminds me of a Gephardt speech.