Samantha, Rachael , yes: Women over 40 are, if not yet terminal, terminally uncool. That seems to be the sole reason that More magazine has not been able to attract the kind of advertisers you would think would sign up for a magazine with 1.3 million readers whose average income is $93,000. Ironically, More 's advertising staple of processed food manufacturers has helped insulate them from the ad page drop-off suffered by magazines that rely on luxury brands. But the notions behind this de facto ad boycott are themselves antiquated and based on decades-old thinking about consumers. This article about advertising age bias points out that the idea of needing to capture young readers and viewers to build brand loyalty is idiotic because that's not how consumers think anymore. The other point is that Americans ages 18-34 have $1 trillion in disposable income (and how quickly income gets disposed of these days!), while those over 50 have $2.4 trillion. You would think such money talks, but apparently not if it comes from the purse of grandma. And Rachael, you make the argument in favor of the older consumer. You're young, so your disposable income goes to disposable diapers. But once the kids are grown, there are several decades of spending left for most consumers before they hit the diaper stage of life again.