News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Insane state of today's advertising part 3. Parent comment

Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by zimpenfish on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:17AM (#15147283)
It would be an interesting experiment to put out a non-ad-subsidised version of Vogue and see how many people bought it. I would guess at "not that many".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by LeoNatan25 on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:25AM (#15147320)
If it’s “900” pages of pure content, rather than ads, hell, even I’d buy it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by Kiro on Friday September 01, 2017 @08:02AM (#15147642)
You're probably in minority though. It's like a catalogue. The "pure content" is just fluff.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by utexaspunk on Friday September 01, 2017 @08:08AM (#15147659)
Even if that "content" is boilerplate drivel like "25 Ways to Drive Him Wild in Bed!"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by MrMid on Friday September 01, 2017 @09:43AM (#15148233)
Wouldn't that be called a "book"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by zimpenfish on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:39AM (#15147366)
It's 900 pages of pure content ... but costs $95.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insane state of today's advertising part 3 by elkos on Saturday September 02, 2017 @12:50AM (#15154336)
It is my understanding that a similar publication nowadays, Cosmopolitan, used to be mostly a literary publication in it's early days. I wonder how the contents vs advertising ratio was balanced at the time.
[ Parent | on HN ]