Why is the print of Shonen Jump so bad

>>138837750
They're meant to be read and then trashed. The specific series volumes is what is meant to be collected, the magazines are supposed to be as cheap as possible.

It's the size of a fucking phonebook. It will obviously have shit paper quality to still be affordable.
Don't be dumb.

It's a weekly mag, you fucking retard.

>>138837864
>>138837925
>>138838000
>it's popular
>so it's supposed to be bad
well fuck you too faggots

>>138838043
Learn to read fucktard. WSJ isn't ever meant to be collected, why would you waste money on good quality paper for something which you aren't expecting anyone to keep. That's why the weekly stuff is dirt cheap but the tankobons are expensive since they are the collectable item.

Why are you even getting WSJ if you don't know this already.

>>138837750
It's meant to be cheap.
People buy it, read the content they want, and throw it away.

How much does a WSJ issue cost anyway.

>>138838412

really ? I like the covers and will probably keep mine

>>138838497

I got one for 5 pounds

What a waste of paper.

>>138838546

just did some research apparently it's printed on second hand paper senpai deshou o genki desu

>>138838222
>Why are you even getting WSJ if you don't know this already.
He probably bought it it because he didn't know.

Because it's meant to be read and then thrown away.

By the way, most of japanese magazines looks like fucking phonebooks.
Got one Hobby Japan few years ago, shit was huge and heavy.

The better question is why they make such a big deal of color pages. I used to think that color pages were expensive, and they could only print about 5 pages without increasing the price of the magazine, but every week there are like 20 to 30 color pages of ads.
Why?

>>138838867

it's second hand paper and the colour hides imperfections. The official reason is that viewers match the colour to the series they want. Blue pages ? One Piece

>>138838540
Seems like a good deal. A shitton of content ranging from mediocre to good.

>>138838043
it's like watching a television broadcast and complaining that it's not as good as watching a bluray set