4 ms·
People still pay $10-50 per month to buy physical magazines that still contain advertisements on more than 60% of the pages?
by technovader 5y ago
People still pay $10-50 per month to buy physical magazines that still contain advertisements on more than 60% of the pages?
- wiseguy317 5y agoWhatever village you are from they miss you.
- Ansil849 5y agoIt beats browsing rubbish websites where the advertising is indistinguishable from the articles.
- biztos 5y agoJust wait until you pick up a fashion magazine. (Seriously though: for many types of magazine the ads are the larger point, and the editorial content insofar as it’s not itself a sophisticated ad — cf. Vogue — is there to stimulate your mind while you contemplate the ads. Which are, very often, really good.)
- 130e13a 5y agoIt's not a tech magazine, but that is one of the things i enjoy about The Economist. They usually have only ~6-10 pages pages with advertisements, out of ~75-80 pages in total. Makes you feel respected as a reader, not being constantly bombarded with ads.
- basisword 5y agoMost subscriptions I've looked at are around $70 per year (so a lot cheaper than you suggest) and the amount of advertising in them seems to be less than it was years ago.
- rbanffy 5y agoAlso, let's note we used to learn about new products in ads well before they appeared in editorial content.
- elric 5y agoYes, because even with ads on paper, the reading experience is vastly superior to a screen. And unlike websites, my print magazines aren't trying to profile me in order to peddle irrelevant crap. They're also easier to archive, easier to thumb through, and quite frankly more fun to read. The only down side is the lack of a search function, but the ToC is usually good enough.