4 ms·
Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads
by shiroiuma 3y ago
Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads, just not so commercial). That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that.
Unlike today, though, the ads in newspapers weren't annoying: they were just print, and didn't pop up dynamically in front of the article you were reading, and no one tried to shame you for not looking at them, unlike today's HN users.
- 0x0203 3y agoNor did they monitor what you looked at on the page, track how you "interacted" with them, and sell all that data about you to anyone who would give them a couple of bucks.
- Shish2k 3y ago> That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. AFAIK for most newspapers and magazines, the cost on the label was mostly there so that readers would feel like the publication was serious - differentiating them from the free papers which were clearly spam and / or propaganda
- shiroiuma 3y agoInteresting, thanks for the info. Yet, despite the newspaper being fully supported by plain, simple, black-and-white print ads (and maybe some color inserts later which were easily discarded), they managed to pay for serious journalists, and they didn't whine about how they need to track you and spy on you and force you to look at obnoxious pop-up ads to make enough money to survive.