4 ms·
Wall Street Journal now the #1 selling US newspaper
- jacquesm 17y agoIt's no reason for celebration if your main competitor and #1 drops 17% and you only gain 0.5% compared to a year earlier. That means your industry is in serious trouble.
- jpcx01 17y agoSurviving is a reasonable cause for celebration. May not last though
- jonknee 17y ago... And you gained .5% because you can count online subscriptions as subscriptions. They didn't break it out but I bet they had a similar dive in paper sales.
- jacquesm 17y agoAh, good point, without the breakout even that is meaningless. That also means that if this is a conversion issue that it may be a one-time affair. The next years figures will tell that story.
- simon_ 17y agoKeep in mind that WSJ charges a substantial fee for online subscriptions, and probably ends up profiting more on them than on paper subscriptions.
- gleb 17y agoNo. That small growth is good means that your industry is mature.
- dschobel 17y agoBut how does the print revenue compare to the online revenue? You have to wonder if the WSJ pay-wall is keeping more of their readership in the dead-tree world vs something like the NYT.
- nir 17y agoWhy would WSJ care? Either way, the readers pay. I'm not a huge fan of Murdoch, but I respect him for insisting on the simple principle of charging money for his product, while the hyposphere keeps twitting on how he "just doesn't get it".
- snewe 17y agoWorking link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall-street-journal-circulation,0,1945968.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall-street...
- gahahaha 17y agoSad. I used to read it when I had the chance, but now I pick up the FT out of principle. Worth quoting Paul Krugman: """ 1) The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything. 2) If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1"""
- smanek 17y agoCan you say 'Begging the Question' ;-) Frankly, I really don't think Krugman is any position to criticize. He has a terrible track record himself. The worst thing is that his actual work in economics (e.g., international trade theory) is really good - but he makes completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims well beyond anything theory supports. Then, those suppositions are given credence just because of who he is.
- gahahaha 17y agoI happen to believe that Krugman is mostly right, and a darn good writer. (but I am a Social Democrat who likes to read right-wing newspapers because they are usually so well funded :)
- dschobel 17y agoThe issue most people have with Krugman is that he's living this odd dual-life between respected economist and partisan. He intertwines the two in such a way that you take <serious economics> + <krugman's belief system> and get policy recommendations out the other end. So it's seriously compelling to people who share his beliefs, anathema to those who don't, and kind of annoying to everyone else who notices the context switches and hand waving.
- gahahaha 17y ago"people who share his beliefs, those who don't" == Everybody So you're saying nobody notices the context switches?
- jacoblyles 17y ago
- JCThoughtscream 17y agoBeing the king of the hill on a sinking ship isn't exactly impressive.
- mynameishere 17y agoThat was one painful mixed metaphor. .... Response to dschobel above. Nytimes stats: http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs-print-ad-revenue-the-10-problem/ http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs-print-... * Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000 * Print circulation – weekday: 1,120,420 * Print circulation – Sunday: 1,627,062 * Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000 * Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000
- JCThoughtscream 17y agoYou're right. Shall we go with "king of a hill of quicksand?"