$20 is a lot for most families, outside of Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, and a few other areas.
Economist has rich subscribers. I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with higher prices.
Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos.
Every dollar counts when you're impoverished, but I don't think National Geographic is making or breaking it based on a demographic that makes purchasing decisions at that margin.
What about suburban DC? Dallas? Houston? Denver? Salt Lake City? Chicago?
Not sure if your last sentence was intended to be ironic, but there’s nowhere you can fly that’s less than an Economist subscription
Looking at allegiant’s site right now the only thing I could find for that price is a flight from Provo to Vegas
$20 around SF here is less than a couple cocktails.
I think National Geographic (which I'm a subscriber) can charge 10x more without losing 90% of it's audience. It's the price to pay to receive good articles at your home and it's definitely worth tons more than drinking and eating junk in the dark.
I live in the Midwest. Even when I was living paycheck to paycheck in rural Minnesota, $20 per year was never a lot of money.
> Personally, I'd rather fly somewhere than see photos.
For the $200 per year I pay for The Economist I could maybe get to Chicago if I got a really good deal.
I don’t know where you’re finding such cheap flights
Lots of it must be schools and doctor and dentist offices.