Runners World Magazine - continue subs?

My biggest problem with it is that there just seems hardly anything to read, with a good 50% (not a fact) of the magazine taken up by ads and race events (the reviews are ok but don't see the point in listing all the running events in each area.

 I didn't know you could use Tesco points.  Will have to look into this.

Running Fitness just seems more interesting.  I may jump ship.  Thanks for all your views.

I got RF subscription at the pre FLM exhibition in 2004, and I might cancel - but its still better than RW. I still just have a quick flick  of RW at Euston - I don't even buy it when I'm drunk now it is stupidly expensive.

Probably the worse thing is the repetitiveness - New year - build up to the marathon - after marathon - DO A 5K short race now!!...summer running....then back to marathon build up.

Amazed no one has mentioned Athletics weekly - have a peek, its probably better than you think, alot more inclusive than it used to be - great articles, results, interviews and races.

Its better reading RW when drunk. You find it more entertaining.

AW is good but it caters the track and field. Not great if you a runner. Plus its weekly and expensive.

I haven't missed it at all since I cancelled.  In fact, I'd forgotten about it until I saw this thread.

Anyone tried Running TImes from the states, sometimes seen it in Borders, clearly the races are US biased, but seems to have more scientific bits about training and racing than RW

Running Times is published by Runners World funny enough.

RW UK has scientific bits too. Like this months fantastic article on how to go up kerbs, run round corners, and shock horror, overtake in a race. How I will live without this valuable information if I cancel I don't know. I'll be tripping over and bumping into people on every single run.

As someone who works on the editorial side of publishing (I'm nothing to do with RW or any sister titles, or any of its adversaries come to that), it's worth me pointing out that the recession has put intense pressure on budgets and advertising, especially in print media, has really suffered. What this means in practice, as in lots of businesses, is essentially that magazines employ fewer people to do similar amounts of work - in fact, usually more given the increasing demands of internet publishing. Inevitably, quality suffers, whether it's magazines falling back on the tried and trusted formulas that have brought in readers and advertisers in the past, or simply not doing so much 'real' news any more and relying on what press departments give them, or not having enough time or bodies in place to do a proper subbing/proofreading job, or having an overworked art editor/department frantically trying to get as many pages through as possible.
More than ever before, publishing, from huge national papers to the smallest charity magazine, is run by accountants looking at the bottom line. This means attracting advertisers above everything else, and sod the quality of the editorial content. It's shortsighted, and loses subscribers (in my opinion), but I'm afraid that's how it is.