Newsweek wants a share of the pie that The Economist has always enjoyed which is a small but loyal readership that does not mind paying the expensive subscription rate. So it decided to raise its subscription rate this year to purposefully drive away poor readers like me who can't afford it as part of a grand scheme to make the affluent ones stay and target the wealthier group as new or potential subscribers. This is in an effort to cut printing and postage costs and increase advertising rates. I think there are more reasons that it won't work than it will though.
For one, Newsweek is unlike The Economist in terms of content and reporting style. The Economist writes about serious intelligent stuff that only a few would bother to read (or can understand) while Newsweek appeals more to the masses with its easy writing and topics. Sure it recently changed its layout and style. The pages are now filled with opinions on important global issues and news that the regular reader is tempted go back to the cover to check if he's holding another magazine. The new look does not only require a lot of getting used to, it also screams uncertainty and nervousness. It forgets that it's not only about justifying the price hike by way of excellent or intelligent reporting and content which are important but not so much when the result is forced, unoriginal and has zero appeal. Besides, with today's economic climate the rich are no longer that different from you and me. Who's willing to pay an amount for something mediocre when one can add a little more and get the best? That's the new Newsweek for you. Thanks but no thanks.
Still I owe it to them for forcing me take one subscription off my self-imposed financial burden, making me US$220 richer. At least something good came out of that great plan to save the ailing news magazine. Except that I was the one who took the benefit. For now.
Posts
