Comments (8)

• That’s something that should be drilled into every publisher on the planet.

  Comment by Richard — September 9, 2009 @ 5:54 am  Reply to this post

• That is EXACTLY why I read The Economist religiously every week, and ignore all forms of TV news: TV news is stupid, ignorant, and often flat-out wrong. Whenever I want up-to-the-minute news, I use internet.

  Incidentally, that’s also why I at least don’t buy American news magazines: They’ve followed TV and are seriously dumbed-down.

  Comment by Avoiding stupid TV news — September 9, 2009 @ 7:05 am  Reply to this post

• What is so unique about Alan Press’ comments is that The Economist was one of the ONLY magazines in the world to increase in subscribers and sales over this past year. Nearly every single other magazine failed by at least 20%, with many shuttering forever including several legacy publications (not counting newspapers).

  I think that there will always be a Jerry Springer audience out there, but somehow entertainment congloms have forgotten that Springer’s audience is a niche audience. And when the majority of programming caters to that trailer-park audience then why wouldn’t the vast majority of people flock elsewhere to be challenged, amused, and informed in their entertainment? If they can’t find the smartness in TV and film, they’ll go elsewhere. And if this happens over a long period of time, you end up with an audience who had more or less permanently changed their habits and perceptions.

  So to be cheap with your entertainment development only exacerbates the flocking of the masses toward something more interesting, more compelling, more challenging, more amusing, more entertaining. And then you arrive at a fighting-the-fire mentality with your budgets and development instead of putting yourself on the offensive.

  Comment by Working Actor — September 9, 2009 @ 9:19 am  Reply to this post

• Going against the tide of short articles attached to large shiny pictures and instead offering more ideas and lengthy tangents has proven successful?
  Colour me surprised.

  Comment by Lumiere — September 9, 2009 @ 10:12 am  Reply to this post

• And what segment of the marketplace are you aiming for when you call someone an “asswipe”?

  Comment by Anonymous — September 9, 2009 @ 11:24 am  Reply to this post

• Sorry to spoil the party, but I suspect that the Economist’s record year is more to do with the global economy melting down than any sudden increase in intelligence of the general populace.

  I believe CNBC’s ratings grew the more the stock market fell as well.

  Comment by DH — September 9, 2009 @ 1:31 pm  Reply to this post

• Too bad he doesn’t write for Variety.

  Comment by Lars — September 9, 2009 @ 2:54 pm  Reply to this post

• What the Economist didn’t tell you in that article is they sell there subscriber list for 100.00 a person to direct marketers…

  The only other magazine that sells these sub-list it the Robb Report at 250.00 per person…

  No wonder they are doing well in the direct marketing business.

  Comment by Tom Anderson — September 10, 2009 @ 1:10 pm  Reply to this post