I thought about putting this one in the “Truth In Advertising” section, but decided that might be misinterpreted as a tacit endorsement of the very objectionable qualities that made me bring this up in the first place.

I recently began getting a “complimentary” subscription to PC Magazine, as a reward for filling out an online questionnaire. The mag’s okay, yet another missive with which to divert myself from undue reflection whilst on the throne (John Dvorak’s kind of a prick in my opinion, but I’m not sure he can help himself. When you earn your bread and butter yelling about stuff, it’s hard to know when enough is enough).

However, some of the ads in this thing leave me wondering what the editors were thinking. The following comes to mind:

See the problem? Allow me to elaborate: “We’ve got $3 million in advertising, and we have Annika Sorenstam….it’s what you call a hole in one.” Get it?

What kind of dickbrain was paid to put this ad together? I have a little trouble imagining that this was a totally innocent error. Don’t we computer nerds have a bad enough reputation without someone implying that we think this kind of thing is funny? “Heh heh, he said ‘hole’.”

On the other hand, I guess I shouldn’t be terribly surprised, given the other ad that caught my eye some twenty pages further:

Between these and the full-page ad for Skoal Bandits on the inside back cover, you get a pretty distinct—and unfortunate—picture of who they think is reading their fine publication. Don’t think I’ll be renewing my subscription when the trial period lapses.