So, you people all read Entertainment Weekly, huh?
By adamg - Wed, 11/21/2007 - 10:45am.
OK, I was doing a little Google sorta ego-surfing (for Universal Hub, not for me), and I stumbled across this page, which claims Universal Hub is
popular among a more educated, rather male, over 65 audience.The typical visitor reads the Boston Herald and subscribes to Entertainment Weekly.
Fortunately, I suspect that's a wee bit skewed because the "monthly uniques" number (i.e., the number of people who visit the site) is way, way off. Also, the page cites an alleged similarity between UH demographics and those of RankMyTattoos.com.
| 
| 
Not over 65 and rarely...
...if ever read the Herald or EW.
;~}
Over 65 ...
Its a good bet that the vast majority of UH readers are over 65 - 65 pounds that is.
Most are likely over 65kg, too.
Um, that's hilarious
Those are some very unusual demographics.
I love it!
I do read EW (but don't subscribe), but I am neither male nor over 65.
I read the Herald online -- does that count?
but I don't even know what Entertainment Weekly looks like.
I Confess!!!
When in dentists offices and other waiting rooms, I head straight for the trash - People, US, EW(wwwww)!
They hand out free Heralds at North Station from time to time, and I'm always willing to pick up an orphaned on if I'm on the train!
Reading at the dentist's or doctor's office
I go for Architectrural Digest or New Yorker or Vogue first -- EW only gets picked if there is NOTHING better. ;~} (just ahead of Highlights -- but only barely)..
Sports Illustrated for me
if I'm stuck in a waiting room like that.
The Herald?
Are they still printing that thing? I read Boston NOW.
Boston NOW? Does it have anything worth reading?
With respect to Boston Now and the Metro
The old adage applies: you get what you pay for.
BostonNOW has a lot of the
BostonNOW has a lot of the same news as UniversalHub, but with an 18-hour delay. On the positive side, it's all the news that fits into a train or bus ride, and is much easier to hold up in standing-room-only rush hour crowds than this hoary Herald of which you speak.
EW
Read EW - absolutely.
Over 65 - um, no.
"OK, I was doing a little
"OK, I was doing a little Google sorta ego-surfing"
Oh, that reminds me, I've haven't gone Google ego-surfing in while. Let's see who loves me.
Secret
I was reading a blog (grr, already can't remember which one) that said link:domain.com doesn't work as well as +domain.com to find who's linking to you.
Perhaps, but if you do that, you wind up with links to your site AND links to stuff ON your site, which makes it kind of a useless search, unless you do:
+domain.com -site:domain.com
Which will exclude all the stuff that's on your site. Google geeking much today, are we?
Buy the Herald if you can
Like to keep this place a two newspaper
town, plus the Red Sox coverage makes up
for the rest of the paper.
I will cop to reading
I will cop to reading Entertainment Weekly. A little bit under 65, though.
I looked up a popular site for which I have detailed metrics, and these guys aren't all that close.
Entertainment Weekly?
Hell to the yes!
[Citation required]
Where do they get their numbers?
Out of their ....
large panels of users, in a "uniquely holistic" approach.
They're trying to get in on the audience-measurement game and if you click on the link, you'll see they claim to have a panel of several million people, but for a fee, you can get even more accurate measurements by putting their tags on your pages, which basically track how people navigate your site. In fairness to them, they do say the UH numbers are too small to be really accurate.
I just realized yet another of my incredibly growing list of possible conflicts I need to disclose: I think we actually use them at work.
EW
EW, yes. Over 65 and read the Herald, nope. RankMyTatoos, sometimes.
I really enjoy Jeff "Doc" Jensen on EW. He's bright, funny and the best source for ABC's Lost info out there. Check him out.