I think marketing's only part of the Economist's success.

It's certainly true that editorially and, uh, advertisorially a lot of what the Economist does is not done to primarily inform its readers, but rather to play to their aspirations. Just look at the advertisement section that comes after the initial material and before the meatier articles. Or listen to their city guide podcasts. They're interesting, to be sure, but they're also very directed toward people with a certain kind of ambition.

It's easy to spot problems in their reporting and analysis in areas I know something about, and now I think I can see them sometimes in areas I know less about. (Hard to tell what that says about me -- older, uglier, a bit more experienced -- and what it says about them -- maybe their writing isn't as good. Probably mostly the former.) Still, calling the other newsweeklies "lowest common denominator" makes them look far better, more articulate, more insightful, more not-retarded than they are, and at least you can't say that about the Economist.

And lot of places would be well served by a magazine of similar quality and tone but focussed on their specific region.