4 ms·

It's more prevalent than you would expect. People pay for cable and magazines. People even pay to become walking ads when they buy brand name clothing. edit: c

It's more prevalent than you would expect. People pay for cable and magazines. People even pay to become walking ads when they buy brand name clothing. edit: comma

cm2187 11y ago
When I was still reading paper magazine, the first thing I did when I received a new issue of The Economist was to shake it over a garbage bin to remove all the inserts and tear up the card board insert in the middle...
- bduerst 11y ago
  Hahah, I did the same. It was either the Economist or FT that did a cost/benefit analysis of removing those inserts for their already-subscribed customers copies, and found that it would cost more in lost new subscriptions to remove them.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    > it would cost more in lost new subscriptions to remove them. How does that make sense?
    - gjm11 11y ago
      Some of those inserts were invitations to subscribe to the Economist.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I guess because people are reminded weekly to resubscribe or buy subscriptions as gifts. I dunno if it applies to me since I would habitually forget to resubscribe until they sent me the YOUR LAST ISSUE wrapping like an invasive Santa Claus.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      Opportunity cost of lost subscriptions. A certain percentage of those inserts will convert to new subscriptions, even if the person receiving the insert was already a subscriber.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Wow, that really brings me back. I remember reading on Quora TE's chief editor explaining that the reason digital and print subscriptions were the same price was because digital ads were easier to avoid or block and were worth less to advertisers than print ads, which are more prominent and harder to ignore (unless you fold it over, but even then you'll certainly notice it).
- Sideshow_Boob 11y ago
  those cardboard inserts made the best joint filters
- kruhft 11y ago
  I remember that process used to be called 'deboning' the magazine.
- LordKano 11y ago
  For a while, there were people who used to drop them all in the mail. Force the publishers and advertisers to pay the postage for them with the idea of making it less profitable to include them with the magazines in the first place.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    I used to do that, back in the 90s in college. First I just put tons of trash paper in business-reply envelopes and drop them in the mail, then I started filling them up with gravel. Years later, on the internet, I remember seeing some article about people doing this, and they had pictures of things like business-reply envelopes attached to bricks, which the USPS had received. IIRC, they said that the USPS didn't actually send these or charge the business for them, unfortunately. So stick with just dropping them in the mail as-is, to make sure the business gets charged for it.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      One time, back in the 80s, American Express had some kind of disagreement with the union that my step-father belonged to and the members of his union went out and every time they'd see the American Express credit card applications, they'd take them all and send them back in blank. They had been told that each application cost a dollar to have mailed and processed. I was a child so I never cared enough to ask about the details of the dispute and I don't know how long they did this, only that they did.
tzs 11y ago
With magazines, at least those for very specialized audiences, the ads can actually be quite useful. For a general interest magazine, like TIME, or Scientific American, the ads are just filler for me. I'd rather have an ad-free version of the magazine. But for something like QST (a ham radio magazine) where almost every advertiser is offering something I have an interest in, and where there are no physical stores in my area where I can go to browse the merchandise in person, the ads do a great job of keeping me current on what is available but are easy to ignore when I'm reading an article. I'd be disappointed if QST was ad-free.

It's more prevalent than you would expect. People pay for cable and magazines. People even pay to become walking ads when they buy brand name clothing. edit: comma

cm2187 11y ago

When I was still reading paper magazine, the first thing I did when I received a new issue of The Economist was to shake it over a garbage bin to remove all the inserts and tear up the card board insert in the middle...

bduerst 11y ago
Hahah, I did the same. It was either the Economist or FT that did a cost/benefit analysis of removing those inserts for their already-subscribed customers copies, and found that it would cost more in lost new subscriptions to remove them.
- frandroid 11y ago
  > it would cost more in lost new subscriptions to remove them. How does that make sense?
  - gjm11 11y ago
    Some of those inserts were invitations to subscribe to the Economist.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I guess because people are reminded weekly to resubscribe or buy subscriptions as gifts. I dunno if it applies to me since I would habitually forget to resubscribe until they sent me the YOUR LAST ISSUE wrapping like an invasive Santa Claus.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Opportunity cost of lost subscriptions. A certain percentage of those inserts will convert to new subscriptions, even if the person receiving the insert was already a subscriber.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Wow, that really brings me back. I remember reading on Quora TE's chief editor explaining that the reason digital and print subscriptions were the same price was because digital ads were easier to avoid or block and were worth less to advertisers than print ads, which are more prominent and harder to ignore (unless you fold it over, but even then you'll certainly notice it).
Sideshow_Boob 11y ago
those cardboard inserts made the best joint filters
kruhft 11y ago
I remember that process used to be called 'deboning' the magazine.
LordKano 11y ago
For a while, there were people who used to drop them all in the mail. Force the publishers and advertisers to pay the postage for them with the idea of making it less profitable to include them with the magazines in the first place.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  I used to do that, back in the 90s in college. First I just put tons of trash paper in business-reply envelopes and drop them in the mail, then I started filling them up with gravel. Years later, on the internet, I remember seeing some article about people doing this, and they had pictures of things like business-reply envelopes attached to bricks, which the USPS had received. IIRC, they said that the USPS didn't actually send these or charge the business for them, unfortunately. So stick with just dropping them in the mail as-is, to make sure the business gets charged for it.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    One time, back in the 80s, American Express had some kind of disagreement with the union that my step-father belonged to and the members of his union went out and every time they'd see the American Express credit card applications, they'd take them all and send them back in blank. They had been told that each application cost a dollar to have mailed and processed. I was a child so I never cared enough to ask about the details of the dispute and I don't know how long they did this, only that they did.

tzs 11y ago

With magazines, at least those for very specialized audiences, the ads can actually be quite useful. For a general interest magazine, like TIME, or Scientific American, the ads are just filler for me. I'd rather have an ad-free version of the magazine. But for something like QST (a ham radio magazine) where almost every advertiser is offering something I have an interest in, and where there are no physical stores in my area where I can go to browse the merchandise in person, the ads do a great job of keeping me current on what is available but are easy to ignore when I'm reading an article. I'd be disappointed if QST was ad-free.