Web was (and is) hard for me to ever get into. Outside of the first few issues, the covers on that run stunk in my opinion. ASM issues had catchy covers and so did PPTSS. Lots of great colour work. My theory is that these comics originated in the 60's and 70's respectively, when bright colours and fun were the mantra. Web debuted in the 80's, and comics were trying to be darker. So maybe that is why the covers were less eye catchy.

That or it was the third (fourth if you include MTU) title devoted to Spidey so perhaps they just didn't care as much. I don't collect or hunt for Web issues outside of a few keys (and even those I did not enjoy). 

I like it when each title has its own unique tone rather than them being interconnected. Like the Byrne Superman titles. Superman was the big story solo title. Action was a team up title. And Adventures was more a street level title.

I don't know. That was after the Superman titles became interconnected and lost me as a reader.

Same here.

Some titles seemed to avoid it. It was rare to see The Incredible Hulk doing that (I remember it crossed over with an issue of Web of Spider-Man). I didn't mind that as it was an excuse to pick up another title, but it was pure, unadulterated Hulk for the most part.

Although the UK comic industry is different, there has never really been overlap here. Judge Dredd appears in 2000 AD and Judge Dredd Megazine, but they are their own entities. I know of someone who never buys the Megazine, he just sticks to 2000 AD.

That was the whole reasoning though from the publishers, in having to "force" you into spending for all 4 weekly issues in order to read an entire story while putting more nickels and dimes into their greedy pockets. They understand we the buyers only have so much to spend and if they can monopolize our purchasing habits to their benefit then they will do so. Because in reality do we really need or want 4 comic books of the same character in the same month? I certainly don't...

I don't want to be "that guy" but I'll go ahead and be that guy. 

Nobody is ever "forced" to buy funnybooks.  They aren't food.  

Taking, for example, the Triangle Superman era DC made a business/editorial decision to link those books so there was one a week.  While individual consumers may not have liked that (as we can see above) one has to assume that it worked out for DC since they maintained that format for 11 years.  So the cost/benefit would appear loss of a few people was made up for by the sales on other titles.  

Big Two consumers get the books they support.  And by and large they are a superstitious and cowardly lot.  The completest/collector mentality leads the companies to multiple titles for characters that sell.  And those books sell.  I'm not casting aspersions...it took me a couple decades to get over following characters even if the book was awful.  

This isn't a particularly new phenomenon, nor is it just a "Big Two" or superhero phenomenon.  Dell and Gold Key put out a ton of different Duck books back in the 50s, 60s and into the 70s.  On any given month you could get Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge, The Junior Woodchucks, The Beagle Boys and various one-shots or seasonal books.  Richie Rich, anyone?  Sad Sack?  Three or four Spider-Man books isn't unusual. 

Which isn't to say that you have to like it.  But it's a perfectly understandable business practice. 

I seemed to sporadically buy copies of Amazing, Spectacular, and Team-Up, plus Marvel Tales (reprints) throughout the 1979-86 window. I do remember having Spectacular #41 straight through to #45, a rare case of the spinner racks having a title five times in a row, that one was tied in with the Fantastic Four comics I was following, and liking the variety of art...