I'm of the opinion that at some point USA Today had demographic data on it's users. Maybe polled directly, or based on a list of names in their subscriber database cross referenced with some other database.

The idea that "user tracking" is now happening on the internet and not in print isn't true. Yes, internet tracking can follow you specifically, but that's because the systems have gotten faster and more connected.

This was true for a huge number of newspapers - user data was an enormous part of the ad business in the print days as well, and has some striking similarities to what happens today online.

Back then it took the form of the subscriber database as you suggest, and was used to help target and sell ads in the paper. The print industry often "sold" the subscriber list in detail to prospective advertisers to demonstrate the potential reach.

Losing detailed subscriber data was one of the primary objections many papers expressed to Apple's app store distribution model which can effectively render readers anonymous, as this was apparently one of the most valuable things they had.

Because it is two orders of magnitude less effective. Putting an ad for a blender in front of someone recently searching for blenders is 100x more effective than putting it in front of a random person.

This means the revenue they can charge for that ad is 100x less, which means that any sites without massive, massive user bases will perish, and those that survive will do it on a pittance.

People paid money for USA Today, and people looked at more advertisements in print papers.