About spulunk

spulunk

Location:

Not specified

Joined on:

06/30/07

Contact:

spulunk@gmail.com

• not yet rated

  Media

  response to  readtolive's post Mortified!

  real journalism

  I understand mortification, but would warn against immediately rebuking GOOD for it's exploration. If, as it has all too often, our media strays away from hard to discuss topics, ones which illicit outcries, then what's the point? No problems can ever be solved without addressing the issues in a manner which surpasses just saying something is Good, or bad ... where's the rest of the story? In this case, it's here ... GOOD put out the topic for discussion and here we are all discussing it. I think that that is at least movement in the right direction.

  Comments (0)

  Commented on August 11, 2008 by - spulunk

• not yet rated

  Magazine

  i love you...but

  The first issue I saw of Good - the give a damn issue - was the most inspiring piece of print I had ever seen. It was the perfect melding of important (offbeat but should be mainstream) periodicals that I had seen. Even more beautiful was the fact that all of the adds related to the ethos of the magazine. However I just opened my most revent issue and found standard adds. The first (of three before any content was reached) was a Ralph Lauren ad - and last time I checked there was nothing environmental about them (not like American Apparel with their sustainable edition). This was followed by a make-up ad (yes from whole foods, but it looked like a typical make-up ad). I don't mean to say that the magazine has gone down hill - the content is still refreshing, but it was so inspiring to find carefully selected advertising. It doesn't feel like that anymore. I am not niave enough to think that a magazine can exist without substantial financing by advertising, but maybe there is another way. Tale netwflix for example,. which was an ad in the most recent edition - perhaps there could be the suggestion that they change their ad focus... for example, to match the ethos of a magazine like good, they are environmental - instead of buying tones of dvds that generate of so much waste netflix is the easy, alwasy available low cost alternative. Whatever the solution, whether it's trying to influence your advertisers or just picking more carefully I would love to have the intitial feel of good back, advertisers and all.

  Comments (0)

  Posted on October 4, 2007 by - spulunk

• not yet rated

  Magazine

  i love you...but

  The first issue I saw of Good - the give a damn issue - was the most inspiring piece of print I had ever seen. It was the perfect melding of important (offbeat but should be mainstream) periodicals that I had seen. Even more beautiful was the fact that all of the adds related to the ethos of the magazine. However I just opened my most revent issue and found standard adds. The first (of three before any content was reached) was a Ralph Lauren ad - and last time I checked there was nothing environmental about them (not like American Apparel with their sustainable edition). This was followed by a make-up ad (yes from whole foods, but it looked like a typical make-up ad). I don't mean to say that the magazine has gone down hill - the content is still refreshing, but it was so inspiring to find carefully selected advertising. It doesn't feel like that anymore. I am not niave enough to think that a magazine can exist without substantial financing by advertising, but maybe there is another way. Tale netwflix for example,. which was an ad in the most recent edition - perhaps there could be the suggestion that they change their ad focus... for example, to match the ethos of a magazine like good, they are environmental - instead of buying tones of dvds that generate of so much waste netflix is the easy, alwasy available low cost alternative. Whatever the solution, whether it's trying to influence your advertisers or just picking more carefully I would love to have the intitial feel of good back, advertisers and all.

  Comments (0)

  Posted on October 4, 2007 by - spulunk