Contents Pages brief analysis/comparison

In reflection, I feel as though I prefer the old NME and Kerrang! contents pages (in comparison to the new NME contents page of which I conducted a LIIAR analysis), and feel as though briefly analysing and comparing these examples would help me along with the other LIIAR analysis. 

I prefer the layouts of these contents pages because the other one was too much like a newspaper, whereas I'm making a magazine; and want it to look like one. 

Similarities:

• Clear and large title at the top of the page
• Large, capitalised, blocky fonts
• Main image that takes up at least 1/3 of the page
• Black, white, red and yellow colour scheme. 
• Markers to distinguish which articles feature on the front page (I like this idea and will definitely use it when drafting.  I always find it helpful, when reading a magazine, to be able to easily find the articles that caught my eye in the first place.)
• The contents lists are sectioned off, with titles that use the same housestlye each time.  This makes it easier to distiguish where the titles are therefore where each kind of story is listed; in turn making it easier for the reader to find what they want. 
• Editors note with contact details.
• Credit to the Photographers in small print, vertically at the bottom left of the page. 
• Advert for subscribing to the magazine; placed in the contents (at the front).  This placed in the contents because it will only appeal to those who have already bought at least one copy of the magazine.  It wouldn't be on the front because 1) it would take up too much space considering that  2) there's a chance that the person looking at the cover hasn't even bought one copy yet, so why assume they'd be interested in subscribing?
• Most of the 'stuff' on the page is arranged in columns.  Some pictures are landscape and in NME the editor's note is too; probably to make it stand out against the contents columns. 

Differences:

• In NME's colour scheme, red and white are the most predominant colours, whereas in Kerrang!, they're yellow and black.
• NME has a band index as well (I like this)
• Kerrang!'s main image takes up 1/2 of the page, whereas NME's main image takes up about 1/3.
• In Kerrang!, the main image and contents list are definitely predominant against everything else on the page.  In NME, everything has a much more equal amount of space.  Personally, I prefer Kerrang!'s layout, because it's more simple and clear, and my eyes know where to look.  NME seems a bit busy, cluttered.  I just prefer looking at the Kerrang! contents page as the layout is easier on the eyes. 
• NME bares a slight resemblance to a cheap 'real story'/celebrity/TV magazine, because of the fonts used.  I prefer the fonts used on Kerrang!'s contents page as they're a bit different and just seem more suited to a rock magazine. 
• Kerrang! has a picture of the editor.  I like this because it creates a more personal relationship between the reader and the editor as the reader can put a face to a name.  It also shows that the editor has nothing to hide as he doesn't mind his readership knowing what he looks like; this might help the reader to trust the content of the magazine more easily. 
• Kerrang! has small images of the double page spreads to entice you to read them.  (I'm not sure I like this because it spoils the surprise)

What I've taken from this analysis:

• I'm going to go for a more defined layout like Kerrang, but in drafting I will take bits and pieces from NME's layout
• Band Index
• Use a font that's not really commonly used
• Black + White + another colour = colour scheme
• Subscription advert
• Highlight what's on the cover
• Section parts of the contents
• Include a picture with editor's note
• Space the cover stories apart so the reader's eyes scan over the other stories. (Same applies to where the stories go throughout the actual magazine; so that when the reader flicks through, from one cover article to the next, they read the other articles in the magazine)