In the old print days, subscriptions (or the cover price) only covered a small part of a publication’s costs. Perhaps just enough to cover printing and distribution, if that.
The majority of print revenue always came from advertising - a revenue stream that is apparantly drying up in the online era.
Re:The subscription-pocalypse
by NeedMoreTea on Monday January 28, 2019 @08:09AM
(#19017131)
Yup, and it was much more benign. No tracking. Whole supplements you could skip if you weren't looking for a new car or holiday. Take more interest when you're thinking of decorating or kitchen replacement.
Actually for many newspapers in the US the classifieds were a major revenue contributor.
Re:The subscription-pocalypse
by schrodinger on Monday January 28, 2019 @06:51AM
(#19016744)
FYI 50p in 1990 is 94p today adjusted for inflation
Re:The subscription-pocalypse
by NeedMoreTea on Monday January 28, 2019 @08:07AM
(#19017122)
Yet the actual papers are about £2 now.
Seem to remember (this could be very fallible) I was paying around 50p for a Guardian or Telegraph in the 90s and early 00s. Tabloids might have been 25p or 30p. £1 and up feels far too much for a paper, even now.
Obviously we've all adjusted how we read as well. Instead of taking everything from one site we might graze half a dozen sites for news, and a full subscription might feel too much for any of them. The few lite subscriptions I've looked at didn't feel that light.