http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02E0D81439E733A25752C1A9629C946897D6CF

‘ W.M. OSTRANDER’ IN RECEIVER’S HANDS; Largest Stockholder, a Woman, Says Realty Corporation Assets Have Been Diverted. ABOUT 2,000 OTHER HOLDERS Mrs. Nene Van Tuyll Fenn Declares Ostrander Sold His Own and Not Treasury Stock — General Denial.April 11, 1909, Sunday

2. I definitely limit my exposure to ads. We don’t have television at home–just the actual TVs with DVD players. We watch pre-recorded stuff. There’s not much of worth on TV–network or cable–anyway these days any more. When I’m listening to the radio, I switch to a CD or turn it off when commercials come on. Online, I just ignore ads. They are but so much color and blur to me.

Jen M.

And, @ Jen: “(nope, didn’t have acid-free paper back then!).”

Paper made from cotton, as Western paper was in the old days, should be acid free, but magazines a century ago (as now) must have been printed on wood pulp paper.

Jason
http://www.designerbay.com

@ Heather: Betcha 10 cents wasn’t cheap. My father was born in 1909; he spoke of living on $10 a month as a young man, and he didn’t seem to consider that starvation wages.

Advertising has become ubiquitous: you can’t get away from it. If you don’t watch TV or read magazines or newspapers or surf the Web, then some clown calls you on the phone to push an ad into your ear. Once out of idle curiosity I tried to count the number of advertising messages I was exposed to while driving down the street…within a few blocks I lost count. If you counted each business’s sign as well as billboards, it was hundreds!

Do you think people get immune to it? On a conscious level, I don’t even see about 90% of the stuff. When I’m watching TV I zap the ads, and I restrict my radio listening to NPR specifically so I don’t have to be subjected to advertising.

Maybe that’s my age. As younger people, do you find yourselves actually preferring the advertising to the content? When my son (now 30) was a teenager still at home, if the dratted parents would try to zap the ads, he would protest and turn the sound back on. He insisted the ads were better than the programming. And he may have been right….

Jell-o was clearly a bit more expensive a century ago.

The vacuum advertisement is particularly amusing, as it’s focus on the economic advantages of 3 cents per week (now around $1/$4 for CPI/GDPperC) pales in comparison to the $70 it cost, which translates to $1700 for inflation or around $10000 in terms of average wages, which is slightly more expensive than most vacuum cleaners now, and illustrates why repair services and reliability were more important then.

For lack of anything better, I tend to use http://www.measuringworth.com for such calculations.

Ain’t the Internet wonderful?

Sayers also wrote essays on advertising, pointing out how much of what was sold was not necessary or useful. But she also noted, “Those who prefer their English sloppy have only themselves to thank if the advertisement writer uses his mastery of the vocabulary and syntax to mislead their weak minds.”

It’s always good to look at the history that got us to where we are today. You make a good point about credit. Back then they still extended money, but the rates were a lot higher. We complain about credit cards, but we are getting a bargain compared to 1904.

Magazine ads can also be appreciated as works of art though. Think of all the wonderful retro posters from the past.

Like others here, I am teaching my kids to see beyond an adverts surface message. I teach them all about the ploys the marketing industry uses to part them from their money. It’s also the main reason why I refuse to purchase more than the basic cable package!! Here in the US, we are bombarded by temptation as soon as we step outside our homes. I try hard not to let too much of it get inside mine.