"At Newsweek, we lie, and live, only for the future Caliphate."
Posted on 11/01/2007 3:24:51 PM PDT by Milhous
Let me see if I understand this.
Newsweek has been promising advertisers that it will deliver an audience of 3.1MM readers, but now it has decided to cut back on that number; now they're going to promise 2.6MM.
Their reason for doing this is rising costs including the cost of postage.
Hey Mr. Advertiser, we used to tell you your ad would be seen by X eyeballs, but now we're saying your ad will be seen by X minus 16% of X; this is because our costs are higher.
Does this make sense to anyone? It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
They were claiming at least 500K more pairs of eyes were readin the rag than actually were.
One has to wonder how many of the 2.6 million "readers" now are subscribers.
Of course, one of the tricks is to pay an accounting firm to attest that each printed copy is read by X pairs of eyeballs. Maybe they are just saying that each printed copy is read by 17% fewer eyeballs.
What they won't say is, "They were always read by 50% fewer."
yitbos
"At Newsweek, we lie, and live, only for the future Caliphate."
But I generally don’t celebrate the deaths I report! :)
“USA Today (”The Nation’s Doormat”) and national magazines got reputations for puffing up their circ numbers. Once a Newsweek subscriber always a Newsweek subscriber, even when the bill remains unpaid. Newsweek can save postage by stopping its deliveries to deadbeats, dead people, empty lots, and other questionable subscribers.”
Nesweak’s dropping of the dead or gone subscribers might be their way of getting ahead of another subscriber audit.
A couple of years ago they offered me a subscription that would have cost them money for postage and just the fishwrap. It was less than $15/year. I told them they couldn’t pay me to subscribe or read their vile rag.
NewsWeak seems to have replaced Slime in Doctors, Dentists and other offices, where they have been free for at least a decade.
We do not even see these free ones anymore...
NewsWeak seems to have replaced Slime in Doctors, Dentists and other offices
This is great news. Can you believe that in the 21st century there are news purveyors who still try to report news based on a 7 day cycle? Think about it. It is a wonder that any of these types of magazines still exist at all. Good riddance to one of the house organs of the democRAT party.
Go to your local bookstore. Shake out all the Slime and Newsweak subscription litter cards and return them to the company for processing.
How can Newsweek “guarantee” a paid circulation base, if it is “chopping” that same circulation base?
“Chopping” a paid circulation implies that the editors are canceling subscriptions (as if to cut costs), rather than the blunt fact that it is the READERS who are the ones canceling.
Seems to poor little ole me that a circulation base is just that: how many people PAY to read this rag. Scrap copies (from unsold newstand issues), gimmes, and canceled subscriptions don’t count.
What utter deluded lying BS.
Newsweek is among the worst. I encounter it and "Time" in my bean counter's waiting area. I shall have to discuss it with him.
To butcher that Russian expression, "There is no Time for Newsweek and no news in Time."
Well.....some
Mag Bag: Newsweek Drops Rate Base by 500K
by Erik Sass, Friday, Nov 2, 2007 7:30 AM ET
Newsweek Drops Rate Base by 500K
Just a few days after shuffling its top management, and two weeks after introducing its new design, Newsweek is shedding 500,000 copies from its rate base, bringing guaranteed paid circulation down to 2.6 million. The move mirrors a similar move by competitor Time magazine, which cut its rate base by 750,000 earlier this year. In reducing guaranteed paid circulation, both magazines are acknowledging the slump in newsstand sales and subscriptions that has bedeviled the newsweekly category in recent years.
Earlier this week, Newsweek announced that Rick Smith is leaving the magazine after 37 years, vacating both his editor in chief and CEO roles. Smith had been editor in chief for 24 years, and CEO for 16. Thomas Ascheim—previously general manager of Nickelodeon, owned by Viacom—moved into the CEO spot. Ann McDaniel, an executive vice president at the Washington Post Company, was named to the new role of managing director at Newsweek, and publisher Greg Osberg was named president of Newsweek—replacing Harold Shain, who is moving to sister publication Budget Travel as president and CEO.
To revitalize the magazine and spur reader interest, Newsweek recently introduced a major redesign, beginning with its Oct. 22 issue. The magazine got a new look, including less visual clutter, longer articles, fewer images and clearer headings. The redesign represents an attempt to scale up the magazine’s intellectual content, and also introduces three new columns on food, parenting and technology.
In the first three quarters of 2007, Newsweek’s ad pages fell 8.5% and rate-card revenue dropped 3.8%, compared to the same period in 2006, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. In the first half of 2007, newsstand sales fell 9.3% to 100,092, per the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Finally, according to data from Mediamark Research and Intelligence (formerly Mediamark Research Inc.), Newsweek’s total audience has declined in recent years, from 21.3 million in spring 2002 to 18.4 million in spring 2007.
The move mirrors a similar move by competitor Time magazine, which cut its rate base by 750,000 earlier this year.
That needs to get highlighted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.