The typography in advertisements in The New Age is consistent with that used for the magazine's articles. There are a few exceptions for products like Ruskin Fabrics and Fry Cocoa, where logos appear to disrupt the overall text-heavy look of the magazine itself, but even within these advertisements, the actual substantive (textual) portion of the ad matches the magazine's typeface. The result is a certain subjugation of the advertisement: by forcing the ads for certain products to conform to the magazine's own aesthetic, the importance of the ad becomes relative to the magazine's content.
On another note, the ads are clearly written to cater to readers of The New Age, by appealing to their assumed "superiority" of intellect/interests. An ad for Hovis Bread proclaims that the product is "NOT an ordinary bread, but a highly specialized article," and Fry's Cocoa purports to be "real food" which promotes "a clear brain and steady nerves." An ostensible attempt to lessen the cheapening necessity/effect of advertisements, it's as if the ads in The New Age aren't proper ads so much as they are tasteful suggestions for a discerning reader/consumer. Ads for other publications like The Daily News appeal outright to the oppositional groups presumed to be reading the magazine: in one ad, a brief blurb against the degenerate sport of horse-racing/betting is titled "A Woman's Question" and takes up nearly 3/4 of the ad itself; the title of the magazine appears almost as an afterthought.
It's interesting that you
It's interesting that you note how the ads which break from the typographical stylesheet of the magazine's textual content are actually the ones that deploy the most self-effacing rhetoric. What do you make of that?