<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Look-In &#8211; Issue 49 (November 1981)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981</link>
	<description>Archive television thoughts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:12:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: H E Cooper		</title>
		<link>https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981#comment-344</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[H E Cooper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://visualmutterings.com/?p=1761#comment-344</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981#comment-340&quot;&gt;Ed&lt;/a&gt;.

Thanks for clarifying that and it&#039;s a good point about advertising. Most of the ads in &lt;em&gt;Blake&#039;s 7 Monthly&lt;/em&gt; aren&#039;t earning them much money - there are adverts for Marvel UK back issues and subscriptions, annuals via Dangerous Visions (Marvel UK&#039;s name for their back issue supplier), plus a &#039;Marvel Classifieds&#039; page containing small text adverts for genre shops and mail order services. The only one that might be earning them some substantial advertising money is the back-cover one - and Issue 2 chose to forgo this for a Paul Darrow Q&amp;A. DWM 57 fares a tad better, with a full-page ad for Forbidden Planet, a back-cover ad, plus another full-page one on the inside of the back cover. Meanwhile, &lt;em&gt;Look-In&lt;/em&gt; has a 1/4 page, two 1/2 page, a 3/4 page, and two full-page ads, along with a feature on Christmas gifts that sounds like it was probably sponsored. Perhaps Marvel UK found it easier to retain a loyal readership with fewer potentially irrelevant ads.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981#comment-340">Ed</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying that and it&#8217;s a good point about advertising. Most of the ads in <em>Blake&#8217;s 7 Monthly</em> aren&#8217;t earning them much money &#8211; there are adverts for Marvel UK back issues and subscriptions, annuals via Dangerous Visions (Marvel UK&#8217;s name for their back issue supplier), plus a &#8216;Marvel Classifieds&#8217; page containing small text adverts for genre shops and mail order services. The only one that might be earning them some substantial advertising money is the back-cover one &#8211; and Issue 2 chose to forgo this for a Paul Darrow Q&#038;A. DWM 57 fares a tad better, with a full-page ad for Forbidden Planet, a back-cover ad, plus another full-page one on the inside of the back cover. Meanwhile, <em>Look-In</em> has a 1/4 page, two 1/2 page, a 3/4 page, and two full-page ads, along with a feature on Christmas gifts that sounds like it was probably sponsored. Perhaps Marvel UK found it easier to retain a loyal readership with fewer potentially irrelevant ads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ed		</title>
		<link>https://visualmutterings.com/look-in-issue-49-november-1981#comment-340</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2020 23:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://visualmutterings.com/?p=1761#comment-340</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As I recall, &#039;Look-In&#039; reset its numbering on a yearly basis, so this would have been issue 49 of the 1981 run, rather than the 49th issue ever published.

Carrying advertising can cut the costs of a publication. I don&#039;t know if that&#039;s a contributory factor to the cheapness of &#039;Look-In&#039; compared with DWM and B7M - you&#039;ve only mentioned one ad in all your reviews of the latter, but that doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that there weren&#039;t others.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I recall, &#8216;Look-In&#8217; reset its numbering on a yearly basis, so this would have been issue 49 of the 1981 run, rather than the 49th issue ever published.</p>
<p>Carrying advertising can cut the costs of a publication. I don&#8217;t know if that&#8217;s a contributory factor to the cheapness of &#8216;Look-In&#8217; compared with DWM and B7M &#8211; you&#8217;ve only mentioned one ad in all your reviews of the latter, but that doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean that there weren&#8217;t others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
