Newsweek Changes Subscription Strategy (WaPo Losing Money - Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)

Washington Post ^ | September 12, 2009 | Frank Ahrens

[abb]

Money-losing Newsweek hopes to break even by 2011 and plans to as much as double its subscription rate over the next two years.

Ann McDaniel, managing director of Newsweek, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., said the magazine will aim for a "smaller base of very committed subscribers and get more money from each of them," while speaking at The Post Co.'s annual shareholders meeting at the company's D.C. headquarters.

Analysts suggested that the new Newsweek is modeling its editorial strategy on England's Economist, and now it appears to be doing the same thing with its business strategy. A subscription to the Economist costs $120 per year, whereas a subscription to Newsweek costs $37. That figure could rise to as much as $75 by 2011, McDaniel said. The magazine division had an operating loss of $25.4 million in the first six months of this year.

Because of declining advertising revenue and circulation, Newsweek and The Washington Post newspaper have been the two trouble spots for The Post Co., which also owns the growing Kaplan education company, Cable One cable company, six television stations and other publications, including the online magazine Slate.

Graham said he has been thrilled with the results at Kaplan, which provides more than half of all Post Co. revenue, but he warned that the company "cannot possibly continue to grow at the rate of the past 10 years." Kaplan revenue has surged from $258 million in 1999 to more than $2 billion today. Kaplan University, the company's online college, launched in 2001 with 34 students. Today, it has more than 56,000.

At The Post, publisher Katharine Weymouth said the ongoing losses are "material and unacceptable." The newspaper division lost $143 million through the first six months of this year.

snip

[abb]

[abb]

Ping. Saturday evening good news!!

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’d be expecting to see a lot of consolidations of failing papers. Instead it seems they are hell bent on dying alone. Herding cats?

[SkyDancer]

Typical Liberal thinking - loosing money then why not raise the price ...

[Nick Danger]

Isn't this the second time they've announced this change at Newsweek?

Here's an idea: put out an issue that does not have Barack Obama on the cover.

[abb]

I’d be expecting to see a lot of consolidations of failing papers. Instead it seems they are hell bent on dying alone. Herding cats?

The big metro model just won't work any more. Only super local stuff has a chance. And it has happened very suddenly and they're just too hidebound to change in time.

[rabidralph]

At The Post, publisher Katharine Weymouth said the ongoing losses are "material and unacceptable."

Why don't you host a fundraiser at your house? LOL!

[MamaDearest]

Hopefully they’ll have a market being bought by their left-wing readers. Their sales strategy (conservative bashing) thus far has eliminated a good portion of Americans who expected more from them than the ugly smearing they got.

[hoosier hick]

Ann McDaniel, managing director of Newsweek, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., said the magazine will aim for a "smaller base of very committed subscribers and get more money from each of them,"

This is a great strategy. They are counting on the subscribers being "very committed" no matter how high they raise the price. Sounds like a winner to me....

hh

[6SJ7]

Maybe they should just shoot for one $50 million subscription.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There’s any amount of lefty swill available for free on the web. It’s hard to beat free.

[ebshumidors]

They did. They have a white racist BABY on this week’s cover.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Ann McDaniel, managing director of Newsweek, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., said the magazine will aim for a "smaller base of very committed subscribers and get more money from each of them,"

Fail.

[MinorityRepublican]

The only newspapers that will survive are the national newspapers (The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) and super local newspapers that can operate with less than 10 reporters.

[sergeantdave]

“the magazine will aim for a “smaller base of very committed subscribers and get more money from each of them,”

Sorry, dolts. You don’t have the power to tax and steal money. Newsweek is going down, you simpering limp-wristed, poodle loving, America hating, purse swinging, clueless satori-seeking wimps.

Even the Buddha hates you, along with Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King and Rin-tin-tin.

Go hold an Olde English lemming faire and drive lances through your black hearts as you jump over the cliff.

[Shady]

I can honestly say that it has been decades since I bought even a single copy of Newsspeak, and I don’t intend to start anytime in my forseeable future.

[Dr. Sivana]

This means Newsweek WILL disappear from all of the doctors’ waiting rooms. It will just be Time, Sports Illustrated and GGood Housekeeping (or equivalent).

[Cheburashka]

... the magazine will aim for a “smaller base of very committed subscribers and get more money from each of them,”

---

The fatal flaw I see in this strategy is that if their subscribers are committed that means they will be in rubber rooms and not have money for subscriptions. Nor will they have access to magazines.

[abb]

The NY Times and the WSJ may not make it, at least as we have always known them. I’m thinking online only - just entirely too much overhead to run the printing presses, buy the paper, hand carry the papers all over hell and gone.

Just too expensive.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

They would make more money (and get more subscriptions) just by running an article on the lies of the current administration. In other words, tell the truth.