Justin even complained to the FCC, but got back a form response asking him to just complain some more. So now he's asking the Consumerist readership for advice. How do you get Condé Nast to stop spamming? As he writes at the end, what he wants to know is how to "get them to stop, in accordance with the law, not just sidestep the problem."

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy pretty close to where I am, I was once subscribed to Cargo Magazine, kind of a mens version of Vogue. Had a lot of gadgets, nice clothes, basically the Gawker empire, but in print.
 
Sadly, they canceled the magazine about 2 years into publication, and remaining issues on subscriptions were switched to GQ magazine. After my subscription ended, I didn't renew, but every now and then, would receive an email from them about offerings, ect. Just basic spam.
 
Attached is an email dated October 11, 2007, stating that I do not wish to receive ANY emails from ANY CondeNast Publication. Since then, I have received 16! emails from them, in direct violation of their own privacy policy. I have forwarded the email to their privacy administrator, have requested for them to stop sending me emails, everything short of an EECB. This isn't some Nigerian guy trying to make my penis larger or send me money, this is a company here, in the United States, that I know should be held accountable.
 
So I called them out in violation of CANSPAM, and sent my confirmation of removal, and copies of the emails sent. I've used the FTC website, forwarded the emails directly, filled out forms, but to no avail. Here is the response from the FTC:

March 24, 2008 Justin XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, FL XXXXXX Re: FTC Ref. No. XXXXXX   Dear Justin XXX:   Thank you for contacting the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") regarding your receipt of unwanted unsolicited commercial email (commonly referred to as "UCE" or "spam").   The strong public outcry against spam prompted Congress to pass the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM" or the "CAN-SPAM Act"). The CAN-SPAM Act does not prohibit the sending of commercial email, it merely sets forth requirements for sending commercial email. CAN-SPAM gives consumers the right to ask companies to stop sending them commercial email, establishes requirements for commercial email messages, and lays out penalties for the people who send violative messages. The law's requirements, which took effect on January 1, 2004, cover email whose primary purpose is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service, including content on a Web site operated for a commercial purpose.   The FTC asks that you send a copy of any unwanted or deceptive email messages to spam@uce.gov. (Please be sure to include the full email header when forwarding your spam - it is the header information that makes it possible for consumer protection agencies to follow up on your complaint.) The FTC uses the spam stored in this database to pursue law enforcement actions against people who send deceptive spam email. In addition, be sure to let the FTC know if a "remove me" request is not honored. If you want to complain about a removal link that doesn't work or not being able to unsubscribe from a list, you can fill out the FTC's online complaint form at www.ftc.gov. Your complaint will be added to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel database and made available to hundreds of law enforcement and consumer protection agencies.   Unfortunately, right now, there is no way to stop receiving spam, just as there is no way to stop receiving junk mail at your home. But there are steps you can take to help minimize the amount of spam you receive. Enclosed please find a FTC Consumer Alert with tips on what you can do to help reduce the amount of spam you receive.   I hope you find the above information helpful in addressing this issue.   Sincerely yours, Consumer Response Center

Big help that was, considering that this is their jurisdiction. They aren't even "taking it seriously". Violation of CANSPAM is an $11,000 fine, so 16 emails can add up pretty quickly.
 
So, my question, to your and the readers of the Consumerist, is how to make them stop sending me emails. I know it's just easier to automatically have them be deleted, mark them as spam, ect., but the importance is to get them to stop, in accordance with the law, not just sidestep the problem.

Last December I placed an order at art.com for a framed print which I intended to give as a Christmas present. I placed the order well within art.com's recommended time frame for delivery in time for christmas. During the order they promised delivery by December 17th. Well, as you may guess December 17th came and went with no package (they shipped it on the 15th via DHL.) December 24th came and went with no package. DHL finally delivered it on the 26th after I had been forced to go out and purchase another gift to replace the one that had not arrived.

In the end I let it slide. I had no desire to deal with telephone customer service the week after Christmas to get my shipping money refunded from art.com. I had better things to do with my vacation time.

This week I come home and find an issue of "Working Mother" magazine in my mailbox. Thinking it was delivered by mistake to my box I check the address label. To my surprise I find that it is addressed to me. Having all the correct Male parts it is anatomically impossible for me to be a working mother so I was puzzled as to how I ended up with this subscription. I refused delivery of the magazine by writing "refused" on the label and leaving it in my mailbox with the flag up. Next I visited their website and put in an inquiry via an online form. Surprisingly they got back to me very quickly. The verdict? Art.com had signed me up for a complimentary subscription for one year. I certainly don't remember clicking anything during my order with them indicating that I might be interested in 12 issues of a magazine that I will throw directly into the trash every month. If I did leave a box checked or something it must not have been very conspicuous because I usually catch stuff like that.

Working Mother magazine canceled my "subscription" in response to my message to them.

As a postal customer I'm bombarded with a pile of junk mail every month. Shame on art.com for adding this mountain of waste.

Brian

I'm currently out of town on a long business trip, and my wife told me about a somewhat disturbing thing that happened.

While I've been gone, I started receiving issues of Entertainment Weekly (which neither I nor my wife have any interest in reading). The label had my name on it, so it wasn't a matter of us getting someone else's magazine. My wife, who is rather wary of such things, called up EW and asked what was going on. The EW employee with whom she spoke told her that Hollywood Video had run a promotion, where customers received eight free issues of EW. The next logical question, of course, was "what happens after those eight issues?"

My wife was told that unless the customer canceled, they would be billed for a one-year subscription of EW. Now, I had never heard of the promotion, and never would have agreed to receive the free issues in the first place even if they had been offered to me. I don't know whether this has happened to anybody else, or whether this is an isolated incident, but I thought it might be worth sending in.

Thanks,
Ammon

My wife recently set up an account at the local Hollywood Video branch. We haven't had this membership two weeks and today I got what looked like an advertisement from Entertainment Weekly Magazine in the mail. It was a glossy post card that I almost threw away. Instead I read it and noticed that it was a notice about my "subscription" to Entertainment Weekly and it had a Hollywood Video logo on the front of it.

Apparently when my wife signed up for the video rental account they automatically (as in without asking her permission) signed her up for a subscription to Entertainment Weekly. The notice I received said we would be getting 8 free issues and then they would bill our credit card $29.95 under the Automatic Renewal program if she didn't cancel. I wondered how they would bill a credit card number they didn't have so I went to the website they pointed me to, http://ww.ew.com/customerservice and logged in with the account number on the post card. Sure enough there was my credit card number and an outstanding balance of $29.95. I quickly canceled my "account" with EW.

I can't believe Hollywood Video would be so bold as to hand over my credit card number to another company without even asking first. If this isn't dirty I don't know what is.

Thought you guys might like to know.

Stephen

Has this happened to anyone else? Please tell us about it at tips@consumerist.com. Put "Hollywood Video" in the subject.

(Photo:Sister72)

Their winner in the list-off is Maxim:

The superfluous T&A is more of a lure for some readers than others. But Maxim surprises with its witty and varied gift ideas, which are frequently accompanied by well-written snippets of prose. And as long as you're not a vegetarian, you can't help but love a guide that mentions python filets at $40 a pound.

"Smoking Mittens or Felt Fedora?" [Slate]
(Photo: Getty)

When Is My Industry Going To Stop Lying? [The Long Tail via BoingBoing]

DSI... either directly or through its dealers failed to disclose or misled consumers about the cost of magazine packages and individual magazines, and made weekly cost representations even though consumers could not make weekly payments for the packages.

[It also failed to] tell consumers that their credit cards would be billed for membership in a buying club unless they called within 30 days to cancel, and its failure to provide consumers with information that would enable them to cancel.

"Court Affirms Ruling: Magazine Seller Will Pay More Than $7 Million" [Federal Trade Commission]
(Photo: Getty)

Radio has moved from being in the business of empowering and educating people to Wall Street, to making money. And that's not the big corporate conglomerates, you know, that's not their fault. They were allowed to do this.

This is the fault of government who did not put the proper checks and balances so that this could not happen.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin thinks they should be allowed to own more. Moyers speculates that Martin wants to pass media consolidation by the end of the year to keep the issue away from the Presidential campaign calender. Even pro-business Republicans oppose consolidation; Trent Lott (R-MS), the Republican whip in the Senate, is leading the fight against consolidation with North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan. According to correspondent Rick Karr:

There's no constituency out there saying we want more consolidation. It's essentially just the big media companies. There are no citizens groups out there saying we want more of this.

Transcript [Bill Moyers Journal]
Comment On Media Ownership Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket - 06-121 [FCC Electronic Comment Filing System]
Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
FCC Chairman To Relax Media Ownership Rules
(Photo: fsgm)

The current plan calls for offering three magazines for $4.95 a month, five magazines for $7.95 a month or seven magazines for $9.95 a month — with about 20% of the available magazines priced at a premium.

"You pay by credit card and get charged every month until you tell us to stop," Mr. Wolfe said. "If you want to switch at any point, you can switch off Newsweek for Time or something like that. You go online and make these changes. It's a solution that really addresses more of what consumers want, which is control and flexibility."

Maghound: a Netflix for Magazines? [AdvertisingAge]
(Photo: emdot)

If your Monday is slow and you want to test your own threshold for offensive imagery in advertising, check out NOW's full list. Or, for more thoughtful commentary (the NOW list quickly degrades in quality or offensiveness as you scroll down the page), visit this Metafilter post to see what other readers find (un)acceptable.

"Selling (out) our Women" [Metafilter]

RELATED
"Love Your Body: Offensive Ads" [NOW Foundation]
"Dolce & Gabbana angry at advertising campaign controversy in Spain" [EiTB24]

"The Simple Life Goodbye to having it all" Time Magazine, April 8, 1991

Yeah... guess that one went the way of plaid shirts and Beanie Babies. — BEN POPKEN

[via Frugal For Life]

Wired!

Your magazine is great. I love it all... all but the invasive advertizing. My monthly ritual of de-magositing my Wired, was utterly painless. The 4 "Subscribe to Wired" cards all but fell out. No extra thick pages, gummed in advert books, or "look at me I'm a 4 page spread in 2 pages" fold outs? Is this a fluke or a new direction. I hope the later!

Willing to pay $40 for less advertizing (and less invasive advertizing)!

Clark

If you would like to send a similar email encouraging the good trend seen in this months Wired do so by emailing rants@wiredmag.com

We used to subscribe to Wired ourselves until we grew tired of these very ads, which are not just in Wired but in tons of magazines. —MEGHANN MARCO

How to Read Wired Magazine [Instructables]

If reader Charlie's letter inside isn't proof enough, then perhaps the profusion of negative reviews at Epinions might be of service.

Steve Martin should compile them into a Shouts undt Murmurs piece.

Lastly, let's take a look at the actual magsforless.com site. It looks like poo. Anytime you see a commerce site that looks like it was designed in three seconds, run away. It probably means they suck.

Charlie writes:

"On September 9, 2006, I ordered online a 2 year renewal subscription for The New Yorker Magazine. My Mastercard was charged $29.50. Over the last few weeks I've left 3 voice mails (888-7620-6298)and sent 3 emails to complain because The New Yorker has no record of this transaction. And I've received no response from Magsforless.com or their sister company, My1mag.com. Our subscription runs out in February. I'd like my money back. It appears anyone who uses them risks having their money flush down the toilet, and your credit card number is questionable hands.

I've contacted various consumer protection organizations. We'll see if they have better luck than I did. Just check out what people on epinions.com have to say about these guys. I should have looked there first. I learned the hard way."

At this point, it seems that Charlie's best route of action is to contact his credit card company and ask for a chargeback. This will refund Charlie's money, as well as charge a fee to Magsorless. Luckily, most credit card companies will issue this near automatically for amounts under $50.

— BEN POPKEN

At first, I thought "Oh SH*T WTF did I do wrong?!" And then I looked at the amount: "$24.97 RE: Scientific American" and I thought "WTF, are they serious?!" I read further. "Dear Maxwell, We all make mistakes." Ok, great way to piss me off right away."

Maxwell has never subscribed to the magazine and when he contacted Scientific American they just sent him a canned response asking for his account information. Has this happened to you? It seems the "National Credit Audit Corporation" sends out hundreds of these bogus collection notices. This is most likely a scam. We recommend writing a polite letter to the company refuting the charges, for starters.

The rest of Maxwell's delightful email, inside.

Maxwell writes:

Related:
So You've Been Served By a Debt Collector

Being a Consumerist reader, he gave back as good as he got, and then some.

Their delicate pas de deux, inside. — BEN POPKEN

Car and Driver sent Jim this:

PAYMENT PAST DUE

Dear Jim Ounn:

Frankly, I'm surprised.

Although we have sent you two invoices we have not yet received your $12.00 Car and Driver renewal payment.

If there is a problem with your order, please use the reverse side of this form to let us know. I'll see that the problem is resolved right away.

At your request, we have extended your current subscription by 15 issues. So please send us your check today. That way you won't miss even one exciting issue of Car and Driver.

Sincerely,

Kurt Trumbour

For Car and Driver

Jim wrote back:

Car and Driver
P.O. Box 51132
Boulder, CO 80322-1132

Dear Kurt Trumbour:

Frankly, I'm surprised.

Although I haven't sent you any indication that I wanted to extend my subscription to Car and Driver, you send me a pseudo-dun for a payment, slugged PAYMENT PAST DUE in big, "embarrass the daddy in front of the kids" type at the head of the letter.

I'm surprised that a big organization like Hachette Fillipacchi Media thinks this type of strong-arm tactic is the best way to get and retain customers. Granted, my piddling little subscription barely pays the morning latte straw bill for just one of the HFM VP's, but evidently, it's a significant enough amount that you felt compelled to send me a snotty letter and address a 43-year-old man in the tone you would a teenager who'd been caught getting the correct spelling of "vulva" from his next-chair neighbor during an anatomy test.

I'm also surprised that you think I've renewed my subscription, when I'd done no such thing. I was planning on renewing, since I consider Car and Driver by far the best automotive publication extant, but those plans went out the door when I received this disdainful letter. The customer might not always be right, but he is the one who signs the check. Torque him off at your peril.

I'm also surprised that a media company like HFM, with tentacles in various and sundry places including the Internet, would think that someone aware of the grass-roots nature of the Internet wouldn't forward this "You've been a bad boy" letter to sites like consumerist.com, which get thousands of hits each day from people just itching to find out which companies care about their customers, and which companies think "customer" is a synonym for "loser."

So, frankly, here's what I want you to do.

First: Spell my name correctly. It's Jim Dunn, not Jim Ounn, as C&D has been spelling it.

Second: Immediately cease with the threatening letters over a renewal I didn't request. In fact, unless it's to contact me to apologize for the ridiculously overwrought scare letter you sent, do not ever send anything to my address again.

Third: DO NOT RENEW MY SUBSCRIPTION.

Fourth: Deliver the rest of the issues I have on my current subscription.

Fifth: I will be sending the letter you sent me to consumerist.com. Maybe they'll post it, maybe they won't. If they do, however, HFM's bullying tactics will be there for all the Internet to see. One thing consumerist.com does is to post a company's actions if they attempt to make amends for their error. If you should decide that my business and goodwill are important enough to contact me and try to regain my business, I'll be glad to pass those subsequent make-up efforts along to consumerist.com.

Jim Dunn

So when reader M sent us this comment regarding his difficulties in getting a subscription to Money Magazine at the rockbottom rates he "plays hardball" to get, we started off sympathetic, but he lost us.

M got them down to $9.95 for a year's subscription, but the magazine (or whichever company they contract to manage the subscriptions) entered it in as a 6 month term instead of 12 months. Intentionally? Erroneously? Who knows. But M called and they fixed the problem on the first call. Great! That's how customer service is supposed to work. Would it have been nice if they had billed him correctly in the first place? Of course! But we just can't get all hot and bothered by this.

The joke about paying "a visit to their call center with my .45 revolver" didn't go over too big here, either. Lighten up, man.

M's e-mail, uncut, after the jump:

I've been subscribing to Money magazine for at least three years now. I originally signed up for a one year subscription for $14.95, and was thrilled to get that price which is roughly half of the usually cost. Almost immediately, Money started sending me renewal notices stating that my subscription was about to run out (even though I had ten months to go) and that I could renew my subscription for the low, low price of only $29.95 per year. First, I refused to renew ten months before my subscription was set to expire. Second, I refused to pay their low, low price. I played hardball with them, insisting that I get the reduced price in order to continue my subscription. Over the years, they have usually caved to my demand since I would wait and let their renewal notices get more and more urgent as the months passed. When I get their "final notice" then I send in my check to renew for one year. Money has, for the most part, gone along with this game to see who would blink first, but always they came back with the premature renewal notices. Recently, I sent in my reduced check (which is now down to $9.95) to renew for another year, but to my dismay when I got my first magazine I found that they had only renewed my subscription for six months instead of the full twelve that make up a year. I immediately called their customer service toll free phone number, that is buried in microscopic print on their index page. I informed the phone rep that my subscription had been inexplicably truncated to six months. She had the nerve to say I had responded to a special offer of six months for only $9.50. This was untrue. I told her that never in my life had they ever sent me an offer to renew for only six months - that the minimum subscription has always been twelve months. She put me on hold for a moment and then came back to inform me that my subscription had been extended to twelve months. I told her that if they ever mess up my account again that I will pay a visit to their call center with my .45 revolver. (Just kidding. I did not say that.) I find this to be a very shabby way to run a magazine. They really are banking on their subscribers not paying attention to the details.

But a few months ago, I somehow accidentally grabbed a copy of The Economist instead of Jugs Magazine. And now, Sundays are special to me only by the prospect of lounging on the couch with a ponderous mug of coffee largely bigger than my skull while digesting the world econo-political markets.

Which brings me to my bleary-eyed Monday morning point: the September 9th through 15th issue of The Economist (on sale NOW!) has an absolutely hysterical article called "Welcome Aboard." The column posits what an honest in-flight announcement might sound like. It's all great, but here's a small portion.

Your life-jacket can be found under your seat, but please do not remove it now. In fact, do not bother to look for it at all. In the event of a landing on water, an unprecedented miracle will have occurred, because in the history of aviation, the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero. The aircraft is equipped with inflatable slides that detach to form life rafts, not that it makes any difference. Please remove high-heeled shoes before using the slides. We might as well add that space helmets and anti-gravity belts should also be removed, since even to mention the use of the slides as rafts is to enter the realm of science fiction.

The author also raises the question, "When's someone going to get around to making these crazy jets Gameboy proof, anyway?" Seriously, go buy it. Or at least read it standing up at the store while a newsie informs you that this isn't a fucking libbery.

Fear of Flying [Economist Subscribers Only]

"Soon after I received many more calls "confirming" my information," says Anya.

Sometime later she checked her checking account. Over $200 a month she had no idea about was being withdrawn. Multiple companies kept calling her up saying she owed numbers between $800 and $8,000 a month for magazines.

Anya closed her bank accounts and "settled" with the smallest one for $600.

Today, the same company called her and says she owes over $270 but will "settle" for $150. She wants to know if we have any ideas for getting rid of them when they call. Sure we do, inside...

1) Tell them fuck off.
2) Report the calls to the police as harassing.
3) Check out our posts (1 and 2) about dealing with bad collectors.
4) Get a lawyer to send them a cease and desist letter.
5) Change your phone number.

Anya... please don't buy anything from a telemarketer. You were completely scammed. All those "confirmation" calls were somebody or somebodies recording you as they tricked you into saying "yes" and handing over your billing info. They then went and signed you up for bogus magazine subscriptions. We're sorry that this happened to you but now you need to buck up and stand up for yourself.

Her full letter below.

Hi, I have signed up for this company one unlucky day as I answered the call of a telemarketer. Soon after I received many more calls "confirming" my information. They had all my info except my debit card. The amount I agreed to (I don't exactly remember now) was somewhere between 14 and 44 dollars a month.

When I finally checked my bank statement - I had close to 200 dollars a month being withdrawn from my account. I closed my accounts and began receiving phone calls from what ended up being like 10 different companies each stating that I have a balance with them between 800 and 8000 dollars! For Magazines?!!!!!

Finally I decided that I am not answering any more phone calls. The only one I agreed to pay out was the above named company which also had the "smallest" amount of supposed debt. I was shocked to find out that I owe them supposedly over 700 dollars!!! It was a very tough time for me and I did not have the time to think through all that was going on. It was easier just to pay the "settlement of $600 even though I had to put that on credit card. That was about 2 years ago.

Today I was once again contacted by the same company saying that I owe them over $270 but they will settle for $150. This is getting ridiculous. I wonder if there will be any way of getting rid of them. If you have any suggestions - please help. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. (I don't know what to do. I destroyed all records after getting married because I have not heard from them in about 2 years and I thought this nightmare was over!)"

The stickers read:

The confessions of a generic magazine: "We loaded this issue with more advertising than content. The content we did publish was edited, censored and manipulated to please our advertisers or as lame filler between the product pushing ads. We got paid quite handsomely to produce this issue and are glad you will pay to read what we already got paid to print." Are You Generic?

Should you go into your local Border's and start defacing property you don't own, just to send a snarky message to a surprised People Magazine reader sitting on her toilet one afternoon? No. Should you deface your own property with these stickers? Why not just punch yourself in the face instead?

Confessions of a Generic Magazine [AreYouGeneric.org]

Made-up words and overarching conclusions; you know we're in for some good journalism.

Luckily, the hot tip finally landed on Catharine P. Taylor at Adfreak's desk, reminding us to draw out the pens we've kept soaking in brine...

For NYmag, this is like, a big problem. As Catherine cites, "It's about the mom in the low-slung Sevens and ankle boots and vaguely Berlin-art-scene blouse with the $800 stroller and the TV-screen-size Olsen-twins sunglasses perched on her head walking through Bryant Park listening to Death Cab for Cutie on her Nano." NYmag writerAdam Sternbergh likens this to a case of Peter Pan Syndrome.

Sure, it's that, OR yet another cross-section of people decided that getting older doesn't mean becoming a loser. Or, Sternbergh stumbled upon the amazing revelation that people purchase and use products they enjoy.

Then again, NYMag has a tendency towards the gushy hyperbole of the nonissue zeitgeist...

To its credit, in the summation paragraphs the article finally caves under the weight of its straw man assertions,

"It's also about rejecting a hand-me-down model of adulthood that asks, or even necessitates, that you let go of everything you ever felt passionate about. It's about reimagining adulthood as a period defined by promise, rather than compromise. And who can't relate to that?"

Pity the poor journalist who can, through sheer force of will and objective integrity, only find a small way to "relate" to people who decided that growing up doesnt mean selling out.

Up With Grups* [NYmag]

[drawing and photos ganked from NYmag]

"I hate Watches. (I know, 'what don't you hate, asshole?'). Anyway, meet the Flower [trademark] (Yes, they trademarked the name. Hilarious). I stumbled across it in the overly obnoxious Hollywood Life magazine.

A call to Meyers' toll-free number, and nice lady quoted me the price of $15,700.

Or, for about $15,699 less, you could eat a bag of skittles [a registered trademark], stick your finger down your throat, throw up on your wrist, stick your cheap Timex [a registered trademark] piece in the goo, and wait for the project to harden."

Larger version here, just in case you needed to experience sclerosis of the retina.

Here's video of Glamour Mag's stiletto-on-cobblestones race held this morning, courtesy of Gawker.

Only 150 entrants were allowed. All had to be women (no trannies) sporting a copy of Glamour's March fashion issue and wearing stilettos with heels at least 7 cm high, and at most 1.5 cm wide. Nancy Kwam, a 20 year-old journalism student, won. She's uncertain where she'll spend the 10,000 but supposes it will be a little something to add to the Chanel glasses, Gucci collar and Armani suit she raced in.

Alas, there was no death in the Dutch Glamour magazine high-heel death race. Nor twisted ankles. But, oh yes, copious amounts of glamour! And even—glamor!

Previously: Glamour Pits Stilettoed Women in Death Race for Dollars

In a disappointment to the hedonistic town s illiterate trannies, the press release reports only woman are allowed to run and stiletto's as well as a copy of the March fashion issue are a must to compete.

Furthermore, the run will have a guerrilla character. You know how big the Zapatistas are on pop fashion.

If you re over there loading up on absinthe for your company s annual ides of March celebration, go here to apply to race.

Just watch those ankles.

The gift guide looks wholly unaltered from any random woman's-interest gift guide this Christmas. And come on—a $40 iPod case? That's not a bargain. A $190 professional steamer? You know what's cheap? Not steaming your clothes.

Don't get us started on the $125 Martin Robitsch Schaschlik knife holder, which is quite literally a wooden box filled with bamboo skewers. You could literally build it yourself for about $10 in parts and perhaps 10 minutes of labor—15 if you sanded it. It's insulting that 'Budget Living' would even suggest it.

The hotel guide is quite a bit better, with the most expensive room running $190 a night, with an average room price of $107 and change—not bad for rooms that are a marked cut above the average Super 8 fare.

And pity the poor soul who uses Budget Living's flat-panel TV buyers' guide, with its sidebar showing the 'hidden costs' of the purchase, including a $400 to $600 installation cost. It's only hidden because you're hiding it, BL. Tell people not to get it installed, instead.

Maybe it's our own fault we're disappointed. We were hoping for MAKE, but for shopping. Instead we got the stock-standard magalog, just minus the ridiculous high-end color products that nobody ever buys anyway.

Magazine Home Page [BudgetLivingMedia]