I hope this thread isn't dead and someone actually reads this but even if not oh well here it goes:
I've read every post so far in this thread and I agree and disagree with many of the things that have been said. I think that ultimately the appreciation of an article comes down to how interesting, useful, or informational it is to the reader and as every reader is individual in his/her preference the like or dislike will vary. For instance, I personally appreciate Silicon Sorcery immensely. It may not always provide me something I can use but it usually at least lends itself to some creative brainstorming on my part and often it does feature content from games I've played and enjoyed and seeing it being "translated" from that medium to D&D is great. This doesn't seem to be the primary problem with the content though, on the other hand the depth, creativity, and appeal of this content does. I for one relish the creative and imaginative content provided by Dragon and Dungeon but sometimes an article or a section of an article, such as that found in each classes' section of Class Acts, falls short - sometimes far short. Take for instance the information provided on pgs. 91 and 92 in #324 of Dragon. These two pages ("A Rogue of a Different Color" and "Barbarian Culture") provide nearly useless or already thought of ideas to anyone with a slight amoung of intelligence or imagination - and I think it's safe to assume that the people who play D&D are a rather creative, imaginative, and hopefully intelligent lot.
Some posters have called for theme-specific issues and while I do perhaps see the reasoning behind this it doesn't make for good business sense. If I recieve two editions - remember that's 60 days worth of time - that revolve around themes I am not interested in what are the chances I'll want to consistently purchase the magazine from then on. I'll look at the cover and if something doesn't immediately jump at me I'll put it down and perhaps a few months will pass before I go back and look at it again. In other words, I agree with the "broad array of content" approach. I think in order for consumers to consistenly purchase your product you have to offer them things they can consistenly use or will want.
Insofar as the issue of the "white space" and the changes to the masthead go I have to agree with Fleetfang and Rick Anderson, at least in part. I think Fleetfang's provides and interesting point with the following:
"An example: Two kids, Albert and Bernie have never played D&D before. Albert picks up issue 322 because he sees some creepy guy looking at him. Flipping through it, he sees dark castles of shadow, adventurers exploring a cave by torchlight, pages that look like they're out of old tomes, and creepy characters in long robes. Bernie picks up issue 323 and also flips through it. He sees for the most part black text on a stark, clear, clean field of white, a two-page picture of a Samurai and a knight, what looks like a lot of products that are coming out, some plastic minis on a white field, a big article on a video game, and a catalog, which is oddly more colorful than 90% of the rest of the magazine. Does it really matter that the text is easier to read or that the articles might be scientifically proven to be more easily understood? Albert's imagination has been sparked. He's more likely to read the magazine, to buy it, and maybe learn more about Dungeons & Dragons."
The border art in Dragon has always appealed to me visually and has given the magazine "soul". It's part of what makes the inside of the magazine so darn cool to look at. The fact that it doesn't look other magazines such as "Car (from the UK), Giant Robot, Play, GamesTM, Wired, etc." only adds to its spirit. The "cloned" look of the borders in #324 is lacking and unimaginative.
As for Rick Anderson's comment about Dragon's visibility in stores he is completely correct. In a game store of course Dragon and Dungeon are going to be right there when you come in. In a Barnes & Noble or a Waldenbooks they're tucked away somewhere, likely bottom shelf of the magazine racks often far removed from other D&D material and even the Fantasy/Sci-Fi section. That's the problem with people spotting Dragon and Dungeon on the shelf, not that "from newsstand distance, the old mastheads were a messy jumble, and very anemic. With the new bold mastheads, we have a lot more freedom to cover up parts of it, use color in a distinct way, and so on, without losing the visibility of the name of the magazine." The old masthead espoused beauty over functionality and as I said it's not that the beauty even detracted from the functionality in the first place.
I must say though, I still will probably buy Dragon and Dungeon, and the content is by-and-large is still great. Those who work on it are fantastically talented. I just hate to see some of the aspects that I appreciated so much disappear.