I spent part of my lunch break today looking at an electronic version of a major photography magazine. I say “looking at” because there was very little to read. I was astounded at how little content there actually was in the magazine, and amazed at how many advertisements there were. I don’t watch television and I use an internet browser that blocks advertising, so I’m not a very good judge of just how pervasive advertising is in our world, but as I flipped through the pages I couldn’t help but wonder what it was that I was actually paying for. I finally got to the point where I started thinking about writing this post and stopped reading the magazine.
Here’s a summary of what I found. Please understand that these numbers are approximate and used to illustrate a point. You don’t have to figure out which magazine I’m referring to and correct my numbers. If you do you’re missing the point:
- The magazine has 140 pages including covers
- The first actual article doesn’t start until page 32
- Over half of the pages (78) are full-page advertisements
- Only 48 pages had no advertising at all, but 4 of these were the intro and table of contents
Included in my “No Advertising At All” page count total were:
- 7 pages of “product news” that essentially contain short advertisements for products disguised as news
- A 10-page Advertising Feature that, surprisingly, had ads for other products mixed in
- A 2-page “article” about a new printer that looked suspiciously like a product brochure or press release
- A 10-page article about creating photo books that conveniently listed some companies that publish photo books
- A 4-page article about cloud storage with similar helpful links
To their credit, there were 3 feature articles that consisted of approximately 25 pages. Of course many of these pages had advertising on them, but many contained full-page photos.
I now remember why I dropped most of my magazine subscriptions a year or so ago. I tried a couple of my old favorite photography magazines in electronic versions because the price was significantly better than the paper version. They were tough to pass up at the teaser prices. But now that they are coming up for renewal they are wanting regular magazine rates again, and I just can’t see spending the money for something with so little content. I gladly pay for National Geographic and Lenswork as I feel that the content of those publications makes them worth the price I pay.
I used to figure that the advertising paid for printing the magazine and that my subscription fee paid for the postage to get my magazine to me and the publisher’s profit. But when my magazine gets beamed to my iPad electronically there isn’t much in the way of distribution cost. So who gets the money? I’m not sure, but I think I’ll hang on to my money, thank you very much.
We have some things in common. I no longer subscribe to magazines because of the advertisement and lack of content. I’ve not had a TV for over 20 years or attended moves (can’t afford the popcorn). I watched some late night news with my parents a year ago and felt dizzy with all the advertisements. Scenes were moving too fast and this included the news. I got up and walked away. I guess my head cant run at that speed. But, I don’t think I would have a problem driving the Lamborghini fast.
I’m with you, Monte, though I will attend a movie here and there, sans popcorn. I’ll eat before I go, go to a matinee for $5 and watch the movie. Or, as a better option, head to Redbox or Netflix. As you know, no TV for me either for only 3 years, though.
I’ve often thought that I would enjoy having a television just to watch movies, but I never seem to be able to convince myself that it’s a wise thing to spend my money for (almost said “investment” but caught myself!). And we haven’t been to a movie in years. In fact I can’t even tell you what it was or when we saw it.
Interesting point on the TV news, Monte. Just last week I was sitting in a restaurant and had my back to one of the televisions. At one point something came on, I assume it was a commercial, but what I saw reflected in a window made me wonder if there was an emergency beacon flashing somewhere. It was just the TV. I don’t know how people stand it, but like a lot of things it has come on gradually. I find it hard to believe that at some point people don’t just notice and stop.
I’m with you on the Lamborghini. If I ever get a chance to drive one I’ll come pick you up!
It’s amazing, at least to me, to meet two fellow photographers who don’t have televisions. As a matter of fact, you are the only other two people that I know that don’t own them. It’s a very small circle, that I know of. 🙂
I used to subscribe to a few magazines, but like you, I got tired of the ever increasing number of advertisements, combined with the shrinking content. Also, as I got more and more experienced, the content seemed to be less valuable to me and the articles seemed to repeat, or at least the titles: Top 10 things to improve your photography. Top 100 tricks to make your photographs leap off the page, etc.
The last magazine that I subscribed to was Lenswork and I dropped that because all of the portfolios started looking the same.
I find myself down to two subscriptions now – Nat Geo and Pop Photo. There is enough content in both to keep me involved. I used to save the mags but now I donate them to the library and others can benefit. I don’t like the electronic versions of mags at all.
I’m a movie fan. I love a great story well told and visually exciting. Movies are the most influential art form of the 20th (and now 21st) century, but since I don’t actually go to the movies, I watch them on TV. It’s really to only reason to have a TV.