Craig Grannell offers his opinion, refuting [Marco’s claim](, on magazines that you pay for and still get ads in.

I get where Grannell is coming from and he is right that ads in magazines (digital or other) are not *that* intrusive and act as a subsidy for the magazine. However, that’s only an explanation and not an excuse.

I subscribe to a great many magazines because it is often cheaper to subscribe (usually about $19 a year) than it is to buy them à la carte as I want them. I am not paying $4.99 for one issue when $19 gets me a years worth — makes no sense — and that is exactly why the pricing is the way it is: publishers want people to be subscribers because that is what ad rates are based on.

So, yes, I do want magazines to make money and pay writers — but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the readers. You either strip the ads and ask the readers to support you, or remove the price of admission and get the ads to support you. Anything in between annoys the crap out of me.

Grannell asks in response to Marco asking what he paid for:

>How about the content, and the wages of the people who write the content, and who design the app?

This is all true, but it is also true then that he paid for: the ads. It is also true that the advertisers paid for the wages, and designers. That’s the problem. ((Speaking solely for myself here.))

Posted by Ben Brooks