Idle thoughts of an idle blogger

Do you think electronic scanning at grocery stores has increased or decreased magazine sales?  In the pre-electronic age, when grocery stores had long lines, I used to read the magazines kept near check-out.  If what I was reading was interesting, and I wasn’t going to get a chance to finish it in-store, I’d toss it in my cart and buy it.  Nowadays, the lines move so quickly, I barely have time to unload my cart.  And glancing at the magazines’ front covers alone seldom tempts me (and often puts me off).  What’s your experience been?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Everything is slower here in South Alabama, checkout lines included. Can’t comment on the magazines, other than to say I (still) scan the covers while wasting at Wal-Mart, but that’s all.

  2. says

    I disagree!

    (I am based in the UK)

    I believe now, especially with my local supermarket they now put thier own “magazine” at the front of the aisle, you buy it for £1, take it home, read all the wonderful recipes, which just happen to contain the food that they ~happen~ to sell, in the exact quantities. You then have a ready-made grocery list for next time you return, along with ideas for healthy 15-minute meals.
    (Btw, Idle thoughts of an idle blogger.. perfect title for a post! I may “borrow” the title for a future post to my blog.. following on the “Idle” theme, if you don’t mind?)
    ~Dana

  3. Patrick O'Hannigan says

    I can count the number of times I’ve bought a magazine at a supermarket checkout stand on one hand, and at least three of those purchases were commemorative issues after some VIP died.

    I do like scanning the headlines of “Weekly World News” and “National Enquirer,” however– always so over-the-top that they’re funny. Those headline writers in Florida seem to enjoy their jobs (and I think all the major U.S. tabloids are headquarted in Florida). No wonder Dave Barry and Carl Hiaasen never run out of material.

  4. says

    This makes me think of one blogger that was writing about “What is the real definition of wealth”.

    And the answer I gave was, wealth is when someone does something to save time for many others. Thus resulting in a net positive, where in people practically live longer simply because they do not have to spend time doing basic things like cooking, creating fire, getting firewood, etc and etc.

    Book has illustrated a subject where the technology has created wealth, in that it has allowed many many people to save time that they could spend as if it was freely given. And this only required the time of a few people and inventors and workers, when everyone benefits. A net positive. Wealth, is not gold or money or whatever standard, but a net positive in terms of the quality life expectancy of a person.

    I can’t stand in one spot for too long reading. I keep wanting to move, so I have to sit down.

Leave a Reply