In re Golfweek (etc):
What I can find at
www.golfweek.com is enough for me, at this point. I have enough underread publications (golf and non-golf) in my house already.
I let my Golf Digest subscription lapse when it last come up for renewal. When Golf Magazine comes up for renewal, I expect to let it lapse. I still read Golf World intermittently, but will likely let it lapse, too. Perhaps, at that point, I'll replace it with Golfweek -- or with that fine-looking architecture magazine from Australia.
I'm sure that the publishers and editors of Golfweek, like every other publication, will rely on their researchers' statistical findings about reader interests, in preference to any anecdotal evidence (letters to the editor, etc.) of those interests.
One advantage of the online world is that publishers can immediately and perfectly gauge readers' interests -- or, at least, their preferences among the various stuff they're offering.
So if people show an interest in architecture by clicking on the architecture features at
www.golfweek.com, that might be the most effective way of saying: More, please.
I wrote one letter to a senior editor of Golf Digest (a guy I know), about 10 years ago, proposing to write some architecture features. He wrote back to say (paraphrasing):
Readers don't much care about architecture. Ron Whitten is always begging for more space, because he has so many ideas of how to use it. But the readers want instruction, instruction, and more instruction.
Has anything changed there? I doubt it.