3 ms·

Does anyone have details on the financial health of The Economist? They don't play this dumbed down new media game, and while I'm sure they're not gangbusters,

Does anyone have details on the financial health of The Economist? They don't play this dumbed down new media game, and while I'm sure they're not gangbusters, they do appear quite a bit more stable than the other traditional outlets that _have_ tried to get in on clickbait.

danso 11y ago
The Economist was until recently owned by Pearson, the mammoth education/publishing house, which is why they were able to maintain quality without worrying so much about revenue. However, they aren't a loss-leader and they've been making a profit. Recently, Pearson sold its 50% stake to another private entity: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/pearson-sale-economist/401120/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/pearson-... Apparently, the Economist publishes its financials even though it is not a public company: > According to its most recent results [1], the company had an operating profit of about $93.8 million, up 2 percent for the year. The weekly magazine’s circulation was 1.6 million, and the company saw a 13 percent increase in gross profit from circulation. [1] http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...
ghaff 11y ago
While true, they're one of a small handful of English language mainstream global news publications able to command premium subscriptions. I'm not sure to what degree you can generalize their success to publications with a less well-established brand. That's not to say there aren't alternatives to clickbait though. There are a couple of newish tech news sites that don't go the listicle and clickbait route.
clusterfoo 11y ago
The Economist is a prime example that quality still sells, and always will. Even their new daily newsletters are top-notch. IMHO they get right what most "old media" are getting wrong: The Economist isn't trying to compete with new media at what new media does best. I don't need a magazine for opinion pieces, I have blogs for that; I don't need my local newspaper to tell me about Lady Gaga's new acting career, I don't need a magazine to tell me what's new and cool in fashion or music, and I certainly don't need CNN to tell me what's trending on twitter. Give it up. You can't compete with the masses for that type of content. What I can't get from blogs and twitter is quality journalism: investigation, inside scoops, quality political analysis, etc. When traditional media realizes that this is the domain where they excel, they will be just fine. Instead of cutting down on their investigative journalism departments, slash the entertainment reporters, slash opinion and talking heads. Cut your content in half, cut your staff, stop wasting resources on a hopeless battle, and focus on the one thing no blog or YouTube channel can do... give me concise, focused, quality journalism.
- VOYD 11y ago
  Meh, my manager says quality costs too much. JK

danso 11y ago

The Economist was until recently owned by Pearson, the mammoth education/publishing house, which is why they were able to maintain quality without worrying so much about revenue. However, they aren't a loss-leader and they've been making a profit. Recently, Pearson sold its 50% stake to another private entity: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/pearson-sale-economist/401120/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/pearson-... Apparently, the Economist publishes its financials even though it is not a public company: > According to its most recent results [1], the company had an operating profit of about $93.8 million, up 2 percent for the year. The weekly magazine’s circulation was 1.6 million, and the company saw a 13 percent increase in gross profit from circulation. [1] http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...

ghaff 11y ago

While true, they're one of a small handful of English language mainstream global news publications able to command premium subscriptions. I'm not sure to what degree you can generalize their success to publications with a less well-established brand. That's not to say there aren't alternatives to clickbait though. There are a couple of newish tech news sites that don't go the listicle and clickbait route.

clusterfoo 11y ago

The Economist is a prime example that quality still sells, and always will. Even their new daily newsletters are top-notch. IMHO they get right what most "old media" are getting wrong: The Economist isn't trying to compete with new media at what new media does best. I don't need a magazine for opinion pieces, I have blogs for that; I don't need my local newspaper to tell me about Lady Gaga's new acting career, I don't need a magazine to tell me what's new and cool in fashion or music, and I certainly don't need CNN to tell me what's trending on twitter. Give it up. You can't compete with the masses for that type of content. What I can't get from blogs and twitter is quality journalism: investigation, inside scoops, quality political analysis, etc. When traditional media realizes that this is the domain where they excel, they will be just fine. Instead of cutting down on their investigative journalism departments, slash the entertainment reporters, slash opinion and talking heads. Cut your content in half, cut your staff, stop wasting resources on a hopeless battle, and focus on the one thing no blog or YouTube channel can do... give me concise, focused, quality journalism.

VOYD 11y ago
Meh, my manager says quality costs too much. JK