Time magazine designs covers for four markets.-Witness these stunning dichotomies:

[MADem]

51. Before the internet, if you lived in the ass-end of the world, and wanted news, you had to do

several things: first, buy Newsweek and Time every week; get to the international news shop early, develop a relationship with the owner so he will save stuff for you; second, buy the International Herald Tribune daily; third, buy a local paper (if you're lousy at the lingo, buy the English language version), and last but not least, listen to the BBC world service either over the air or via shortwave. If you had tv, you could tune in the television news as well, but that was often hit or miss.

The Newsweek (RIP) and TIME covers were always very different in other parts of the world; the coverage was, too.

The bottom line isn't especially nefarious--TIME, in USA, competes with PEOPLE and US and gossip-magazines; in other parts of the world, it competes with policy and political magazines in both English and the Native Language of the Locale and is geared towards an audience that reads and writes quite fluently in English--that's usually a small percentage of the total population in many countries (even though some might have "conversational" skills). The fact that it has pictures makes it much nicer for the English As A Second Language reader. Also, "Mommy" type stories don't sell well in either Asia or the Middle East, not in a magazine that is popular in business venues.

A picture of Qaddafi on a US edition in a supermarket isn't going to push someone trying to choose between that publication and another, say PEOPLE, touting Suri Cruise. However, that "family oriented" or "health" story might do the trick.

Different markets, different customer bases, different approaches.