Your Ad Screams "Look At Me!"
Jun. 16th, 2007 08:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbotLas Vegas Weekly is a high-quality, glossy-cover free weekly newspaper with an emphasis on arts, entertainment and popular culture. Each week, 70,000 copies are distributed, reaching an estimated 273,000 readers. Weekly readers find hip culture and edgy journalism almost as important as buying houses, cars and home furnishings, which they do more than the average Las Vegan. [emphasis added]
Readers' Economic Impact in 2006
Women's Clothing $16,160,033
Men's Clothing $21,655,994
Shoes $24,140,905
Jewelry $10,663,490
Furniture/Mattresses $90,753,608
Home Improvement $101,946,672
Stereo Equipment $10,782,000
Televisions $26,337,934
Monthly Wireless/Cell Phone Bill $6,096,322
Weekly Grocery Purchases $12,626,042
Internet Purchases $58,824,044
Planned Auto Purchases in 2007
New Vehicle $452,567,500
Used Vehicle $161,642,900
Las Vegas Weekly readers drive our local economy when compared with the average adult. The average Weekly reader buys more houses, cars, TVs, stereos, computers and home furnishings each year. They are trend-setters open to technology and change. Las Vegas Weekly readers are informed decision makers — they are extremely loyal, dynamic and informed consumers — a passionate, hip, socially active group with ample disposable income and interests in art, music, cuisine, activities, services, sports and entertainment. Weekly readers are responsible — always on the go, working, traveling, exercising, reading, dating, having fun and exploring Las Vegas. Our readers attend concerts, movies and live performances and dine out more often than the average Las Vegan.
Your ad screams "Look at me!" from the page, in 300 dpi full-color on our HI-BRITE newsprint and glossy pages.
Demographics
Adult Men 65%
Adult Women 36%
Median Age 40.4
(21 – 49) 57%
Married 46%
Single 54%
College Educated 62%
Own Residence 59%
Annual Mean Household Income $80,900
Ratio Between Readers' Income And Mine (assuming I get paid as much as I was originally promised) 4:1
To change the subject, I just saw this post from Scott Woods over on the LVW comments thread to my Paris Is Our Vietnam piece:
"The point here is that the haters stimulate me to want to like Paris's music. I want to like her because I don't like her enemies.
Frank, I feel the same way about this, but I wonder if you think there's a danger here that what you write about the Paris album might end up being more reactive than proactive? (Or if such 'dangerousness' is even a problem?) I can probably think of a lot of well-written and thoughtful pieces of criticism that are much more reactive than proactive - i.e., critics writing about something because other critics have pushed them - or rather, pushed the artist or album which they're writing about - into a corner (a corner that you, the reacting critic, believes is bullshit, stupid, or even unfair). I'm not saying your own writing on Paris struck me as reactive, given that you've said lots about the album on its own merits, described the music very well, etc. Just wondering if this makes you at all uncomfortable being pushed into this type of corner. Or, conversely, does it energize you?
When I think of what I wrote about the Paris album on my year-end ballot last year, I could see how someone might think it's all a bit strenuous - that by (in part) responding to all the Paris dissing, I'm trying really hard to find counter-arguments - it's that reactive thing again. But I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. The fact is, though the Paris album wasn't my very favourite record of the year, it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about. On the one hand, being pushed into the corner kind of rankles (can't we move beyond these dumb arguments already, about 'talentless bimbos' and whatnot?); on the other hand, when push comes to shove..."
And I just replied to Scott (though of course who knows if the comment will make it through the LVW system):
"Scott, you're getting ahead of me, since you're asking how this stuff affects what we SAY about the music while I'm still digging into how it affects what we FEEL and THINK. Public discourse is a whole other ball of wax. But in relation to my own question, your crucial sentence is 'it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about.' I'd say the extra effort in itself - which usually means more listenings - will get you to like it more just because the more you attend to something the more you realize what's going on, so you're likely to have more of it reach its way into your feelings. Maybe if people had been calling JoJo and Ciara skanks and bitches and smelly little racists I'd have given them the extra listens and liked the experience of their stuff even more than I liked the Paris. (They each made my top ten, but lower than Paris, and I still think their CDs are way more uneven.) And the point, which I'm making in my next column, is that the way I experience music is neither immutable nor some sort of trustworthy bedrock."
Readers' Economic Impact in 2006
Women's Clothing $16,160,033
Men's Clothing $21,655,994
Shoes $24,140,905
Jewelry $10,663,490
Furniture/Mattresses $90,753,608
Home Improvement $101,946,672
Stereo Equipment $10,782,000
Televisions $26,337,934
Monthly Wireless/Cell Phone Bill $6,096,322
Weekly Grocery Purchases $12,626,042
Internet Purchases $58,824,044
Planned Auto Purchases in 2007
New Vehicle $452,567,500
Used Vehicle $161,642,900
Las Vegas Weekly readers drive our local economy when compared with the average adult. The average Weekly reader buys more houses, cars, TVs, stereos, computers and home furnishings each year. They are trend-setters open to technology and change. Las Vegas Weekly readers are informed decision makers — they are extremely loyal, dynamic and informed consumers — a passionate, hip, socially active group with ample disposable income and interests in art, music, cuisine, activities, services, sports and entertainment. Weekly readers are responsible — always on the go, working, traveling, exercising, reading, dating, having fun and exploring Las Vegas. Our readers attend concerts, movies and live performances and dine out more often than the average Las Vegan.
Your ad screams "Look at me!" from the page, in 300 dpi full-color on our HI-BRITE newsprint and glossy pages.
Demographics
Adult Men 65%
Adult Women 36%
Median Age 40.4
(21 – 49) 57%
Married 46%
Single 54%
College Educated 62%
Own Residence 59%
Annual Mean Household Income $80,900
Ratio Between Readers' Income And Mine (assuming I get paid as much as I was originally promised) 4:1
To change the subject, I just saw this post from Scott Woods over on the LVW comments thread to my Paris Is Our Vietnam piece:
"The point here is that the haters stimulate me to want to like Paris's music. I want to like her because I don't like her enemies.
Frank, I feel the same way about this, but I wonder if you think there's a danger here that what you write about the Paris album might end up being more reactive than proactive? (Or if such 'dangerousness' is even a problem?) I can probably think of a lot of well-written and thoughtful pieces of criticism that are much more reactive than proactive - i.e., critics writing about something because other critics have pushed them - or rather, pushed the artist or album which they're writing about - into a corner (a corner that you, the reacting critic, believes is bullshit, stupid, or even unfair). I'm not saying your own writing on Paris struck me as reactive, given that you've said lots about the album on its own merits, described the music very well, etc. Just wondering if this makes you at all uncomfortable being pushed into this type of corner. Or, conversely, does it energize you?
When I think of what I wrote about the Paris album on my year-end ballot last year, I could see how someone might think it's all a bit strenuous - that by (in part) responding to all the Paris dissing, I'm trying really hard to find counter-arguments - it's that reactive thing again. But I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. The fact is, though the Paris album wasn't my very favourite record of the year, it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about. On the one hand, being pushed into the corner kind of rankles (can't we move beyond these dumb arguments already, about 'talentless bimbos' and whatnot?); on the other hand, when push comes to shove..."
And I just replied to Scott (though of course who knows if the comment will make it through the LVW system):
"Scott, you're getting ahead of me, since you're asking how this stuff affects what we SAY about the music while I'm still digging into how it affects what we FEEL and THINK. Public discourse is a whole other ball of wax. But in relation to my own question, your crucial sentence is 'it's the record I felt I was forced to think the hardest about.' I'd say the extra effort in itself - which usually means more listenings - will get you to like it more just because the more you attend to something the more you realize what's going on, so you're likely to have more of it reach its way into your feelings. Maybe if people had been calling JoJo and Ciara skanks and bitches and smelly little racists I'd have given them the extra listens and liked the experience of their stuff even more than I liked the Paris. (They each made my top ten, but lower than Paris, and I still think their CDs are way more uneven.) And the point, which I'm making in my next column, is that the way I experience music is neither immutable nor some sort of trustworthy bedrock."
