I’m at Web of Change, so updates are likely to be pretty intermittent this week. On my way up–I took the train for the first time from Victoria to Nanaimo–I read the latest issue of Wired magazine. In it, there’s a really fascinating article about the placebo effect, and how, remarkably, it’s increasing:
Why are inert pills suddenly overwhelming promising new drugs and established medicines alike? The reasons are only just beginning to be understood. A network of independent researchers is doggedly uncovering the inner workings—and potential therapeutic applications—of the placebo effect. At the same time, drugmakers are realizing they need to fully understand the mechanisms behind it so they can design trials that differentiate more clearly between the beneficial effects of their products and the body’s innate ability to heal itself. A special task force of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health is seeking to stem the crisis by quietly undertaking one of the most ambitious data-sharing efforts in the history of the drug industry. After decades in the jungles of fringe science, the placebo effect has become the elephant in the boardroom.
The article uses a term I hadn’t heard before: nocebo. Here’s an explanation:
Like any other internal network, the placebo response has limits. It can ease the discomfort of chemotherapy, but it won’t stop the growth of tumors. It also works in reverse to produce the placebo’s evil twin, the nocebo effect. For example, men taking a commonly prescribed prostate drug who were informed that the medication may cause sexual dysfunction were twice as likely to become impotent.
Dan Brown’s new book is “the most anticipated book in decades”? Really?
We always had Maclean’s around our house growing up. I remember enjoying the movie and book reviews, and I think I learned a lot about editorial writing from Allan Fotheringham’s back page columns.
These days, the magazine seems to have lost its way. On the one hand it clings to its more serious routes, while on the other it indulges in these woeful, tabloidy covers. What went wrong?
Playboy Enterprises Inc. disclosed in a Wednesday regulatory filing that upcoming cost-cutting measures will include eliminating 55 jobs at the Chicago publishing and entertainment concern.
In the Securities and Exchange Commission document, Playboy said that a plan to reduce annual costs by $10 million is being increased to $12 million “in light of current economic and media conditions.”
In fairness, there’s more to Playboy than a magazine, but the news got me thinking about the 55-year-old periodical. I don’t know that it’s in any serious trouble. According to Wikipedia, it’s got a circulation of 3 million, down from a high of 7.1 million in 1972. That’s still better than, say, Maxim (2.5 million), Esquire (700,000) or Details (500,000).
But let’s imagine that the magazine is struggling. I got to thinking about what radical action I’d undertake to right the ship. The first thing that occurred to me: get rid of the naked women.
“But,” says the VP of Marketing, “the naked women are our brand! They’re what differentiates us from Maxim et al!”
Nay, I say. Nudity stopped being a differentiator some time in the mid-nineties, when the web became a den of inequity and rife with porn. As any web surfer knows, there’s all forms of nudity to be found for free on the web, from the gentlest erotica to the weirdest fetish. The same is true for periodicals, obviously. There’s Hustler, obviously, but even mainstream magazines like Maxim are often exactly two exposed nipples away from precisely mimicking the images in Playboy.
So, I’m unconvinced that anybody really buys the magazine for the pictures anymore. They buy it for the fantastic essays, interviews and short fiction.
Personally, I’d feel still feel a little sheepish buying an issue of Playboy and a lot sheepish reading it on the bus. Maybe Playboy ought to drop the naked photos altogether, and focus on what really differentiates them from the herd?
No, this isn’t a peculiar, unfunny April Fool’s joke. Just an illustration of the bizarre connections this site sometimes draws.
Last fall I wrote an article about presentations. Shortly thereafter, I was contacted by the editor-in-chief of GeoBusiness, a Czech magazine on “geospatial technologies”. He wanted to translate the article, and publish it in a future issue. Go nuts, I said.
Here it is. This also gives me a chance to try out Scribd. I’ve never used it before, but after some uploading issues, my user experience was happy and smooth:
A reader of the printed magazine might be “someone who generally wants to be a well-informed consumer,” said Giselle Benatar, editor in chief of online media. “But on the Web site, we’re attracting very transaction-minded consumers. They are shoppers. They’re looking for a product, they want ratings, they want recommendations, and they want it now, not once a month.”
Growing up, my family were huge users of Consumer Reports, the magazine. Maybe I’m blurring things in my head a bit, but I don’t think my parents made any big purchases without first consulting Consumer Reports back issues down at the library.
The article indicates that the average online user is fifty year old, which is a little worrying for their longterm sustainability. Still, I’ll probably subscribe to the website when we’re building our house and spending cash on appliances and the like.
Playboy is among the many periodicals 