Latest Issue Of Newsweek Down To Just Six Ads
from the yes,-six dept
There have been a number of attempts over the past few years to revive the sagging news weekly magazine Newsweek (including an amusing attempt to stop being thought of as a news weekly, despite the name). There's also the still confusing merger with the website The Daily Beast. Still, old media tends to live on well past its sell-by date, as you can usually find enough advertisers who will pay just based on name recognition alone. However, it looks like Newsweek may really be reaching the end of the road as the latest issue apparently could only muster up a grand total of six advertisements. Kind of makes you wonder why they even bothered printing the magazine...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why Bother?
After all, "We're all Socialists Now". Right Apparatchik-holes?
(http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html)
.
God Damned Communists.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Bother?
In fact Communism is based on 'good' and Capitalism is based on 'evil'.
Communism is based on people being hardworking, honest and thoughtful. Its just does not work at all, its the failed system.
Capitalism is based on people being lazy, greedy and selfish, it works just fine and is the best political system we have (until the machines take over).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother?
Yes, a cutthroat capitalist system clearly depends on people being lazy and not producing anything. In a truly, 100% capitalist system with no social safety nets to fall back on of any kind, not working is the surest way to guarantee your continued existence. Wait, what?
A more appropriate comparison:
Communism is based on equality of outcome.
Capitalism is based on justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
Which part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
Did you post this comment as a response to some other comment you just made up in your head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother????????
Why are you comparing a political system to an economic system. Ran out of apples to compare to apples, so you figured why not compare apples to alligators?
Can we get back to the topic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother?
Capitalism is based on freedom of speech, property, and association. Communism fundamentally denies some human rights.
That fact that capitalism works so much better is a great bonus, but that's not why I support it. I support it because it's the only economic system that's truly ethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother?
Capitalism is based on people working HARD, making a living off there own work. Hoping to make it BIG! Socialism is for the LAZY, greedy people. You have one group working hard to make money, and then the government comes along and steels a chunk of your money and just gives it away to others that sit on their lazy butt!!! It's never enough, they want more more handouts because they get greedier and greedier, and the Government spends and spends the country into DEPT because there's not enough Rich people to steel money from!!! The lower 40% of the U.S. Population pay ZERO in Federal Taxes. How is that fair again? Spread the Wealth, create a bunch of Lazy & Greedy people that can't go out and get a job because the Government wants people to rely on it and not themselves.
The U.S. really hasn't been a Capitalist country for the last 100 years. It's been moving to the Left, Socialism for quite some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Bother?
Politics + Religion = Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Bother?
"Alpaca Damned Communists" just doesn't have that verbal slap up-side-da-head I was going for.
Tard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fond memories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fond memories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Long Decline
Like pretty much anything combining news and dead trees these days, I find it redundant now. I guess I'm kinda the archetypical consumer of news these days in that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comics
The Economist stuck (though I consume it mainly in MP3 form while walking the dog) but I remember thinking that Time (and especially Newsweek) were basically comics rather than grown up reading.
I also ended up with a NewYorker subscription because a previous resident at the address never redirected it, and I always learn something when I read it.
When it's a quality read or offers a good analysis/summary, a magazine has plenty of future. But when it doesn't even itself know of a reason why it should exist then it deserves to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The important question no one has asked...
Were any of the ads for a snuggie!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
It was mildly amusing to try to read between the lines on this one. Your knee jerk reaction is to condemn anything that an older media company tries to do as wrong headed and clueless. Yet I almost think that you realized halfway through that this was proving what your critics often say: advertising won't pay the bills.
But I'm sure it's going to be different if some unshaven youngster tries to put out a magazine. Suddenly the six ads will be proof that this is a good idea and publicity can pay for content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
You need to have something of value to "give away" for this to work. A smoking pile of crap will not bring in enough eyeballs to make advertising worth while.
I think the take home message here is that beating a dead horse will not make it gallop again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
Don't know where you ever read that. Publicity will pay for good content is something I read here often, but I've never read that publicity will pay for just any content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
Um. What?
Seriously, must you stoop to the level of lying? We have *never* said that at all. In fact, we've said exactly the opposite.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
(1) We've never said that "publicity will pay for content." Why do you lie?
(2) We've never said money will just rain down from the sky. Why do you lie?
(3) We've never said, nor implied, that companies will rush to advertise. Why do you lie?
(4) We've discussed, in fact, that building a business is hard work and takes a lot of effort. Why do you lie?
Seriously, Bob, you owe us an apology.
It was mildly amusing to try to read between the lines on this one. Your knee jerk reaction is to condemn anything that an older media company tries to do as wrong headed and clueless. Yet I almost think that you realized halfway through that this was proving what your critics often say: advertising won't pay the bills.
Why do you lie? We never said "advertising will pay the bills." In fact, I've argued that relying solely on advertising is a *bad* business model. It's why *we* don't rely on advertising.
But, it is worth pointing out that the latest reports out show that ad revenue has jumped up massively. So, Newsweek's failure is hardly a condemnation of advertising. It's a condemnation of Newsweek.
But I'm sure it's going to be different if some unshaven youngster tries to put out a magazine. Suddenly the six ads will be proof that this is a good idea and publicity can pay for content
Seriously. You should apologize.
Do you have anything productive to add or are you just making up shit now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
First of all, the link you offer has nothing to do with ad revenue. It doesn't even mention it. It's about tip jars and I'm glad to see that you've come around to reality. They're wonderful in theory and useful in some cases, but only marginally effective. If they were better, we would see them more often and NPR and PBS wouldn't be fighting so hard for subsidies.
Now there are a number of times when you do discuss ad revenue and lately it's been in postings bashing the NY Times. The thesis you advance a number of times is that the loss of ad revenue won't be replaced with subscriber income. That was certainly the effect the NYT noticed the first time they tried the paywall back when people were still willing to spend dramatically more for ads. But times have changed, user-generated content is abounding, and so advertising just isn't worth as much. That's why the NYT < levity > changed with the times</ levity >.
So go back and read what you've written about the NY Times. The message is always: paywall is bad and so ad revenue is the better solution. My only point is that you can't maintain that Newsweek is a failure for not selling ads and the NY Times is failure because they're trying to escape reliance on ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
You flat out lied about my position. Yes, you owe me an apology. I'm waiting.
First of all, the link you offer has nothing to do with ad revenue.
No, it was in response to your first lie, that I say "publicity will pay for content."
I'm glad to see that you've come around to reality
Huh? I've never said otherwise. Why would you say I've "come around to reality" when my position has been constant. Please. Stop lying.
Now there are a number of times when you do discuss ad revenue and lately it's been in postings bashing the NY Times. The thesis you advance a number of times is that the loss of ad revenue won't be replaced with subscriber income. That was certainly the effect the NYT noticed the first time they tried the paywall back when people were still willing to spend dramatically more for ads.
Actually, ad rates have gone up substantially since then.
Seriously. Just stop.
So go back and read what you've written about the NY Times. The message is always: paywall is bad and so ad revenue is the better solution.
Yes. Ads are a better solution. Not the best, but better.
My only point is that you can't maintain that Newsweek is a failure for not selling ads and the NY Times is failure because they're trying to escape reliance on ads.
Then your point is stupid and wrong. First, it's ridiculous to generalize that because ONE publication has trouble selling ads that ads don't work. The whole point is how one publication failed to do much.
Finally, I *want* the NY Times to get away from a reliance on ads. I've said for a long time that relying on ads is a bad business model (contrary to your lies). But ads are a *better* business model than a paywall. My point is not to "bash" the NY Times, it's to *bash* a bad business decision. I like the NY Times and want them to succeed. That's why I bash the stupid idea of putting up a paywall.
My goodness. Please tell me you don't work for a journalism outfit. If you do, can you tell me how to short your stock?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
Okay, so you want the NYT and Newsweek to get away with a reliance on ads, but you don't want them to set up a paywall. So what is your plan? More t-shirts?
And no ad rates haven't gone up. GOOG's share price is down 5.43% since the market closed and they reported that their revenue wasn't meeting expectations.
Ad spending is going up, but it's being spread thinner and thinner as the amount of inventory goes through the roof thanks to social media sites and other places that don't share this with the writers. Sites that pay their writers can't compete with the huge surplus of ad space on the social sites. Even Google is getting squeezed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content
No. They're selling *attention*. They're not selling publicity. But even if I accept your definition of publicity here, that is NOT what you said at all. You clearly implied that my position was you just sit back and money comes to you. Which is not my position at all.
You do have to work hard to find scarcities to sell. Not being good at sales means you fail. Like Newsweek.
Okay, so you want the NYT and Newsweek to get away with a reliance on ads, but you don't want them to set up a paywall. So what is your plan? More t-shirts?
Do you really think the options are ads, paywall or t-shirts? My goodness. You should have attended our Techdirt Saves Journalism* event last year, where we discussed all sorts of interesting business models.
It certainly depends on the publication, but they can certainly sell attention in *more creative ways*. We do quite well by selling the insight of our community (not you obviously, but others). We also sell the attention, but not just in "ads," but through creative deals that go way beyond ads towards creating compelling content, engaging with our audience etc. Other interesting money makers include events, salons, etc. Some publications are doing some interesting things with selling access. We've had a surprising number of people buy our "day with Techdirt." And we're tiny. If you had a large pub that really connected with fans, they'd be able to sell lots of interesting things...
It's all about connecting with the community though, not treating them like riffraff.
And no ad rates haven't gone up. GOOG's share price is down 5.43% since the market closed and they reported that their revenue wasn't meeting expectations.
Heh. Google is the epitome of remnant inventory. Do not take Goog's issues as an indicator of the rates of ads on *quality* content. If you have quality content, trust me, ad rates are up... You just need to be good at it. Perhaps whoever you work for is not.
Ad spending is going up, but it's being spread thinner and thinner as the amount of inventory goes through the roof thanks to social media sites and other places that don't share this with the writers. Sites that pay their writers can't compete with the huge surplus of ad space on the social sites. Even Google is getting squeezed.
Heh. You'd be surprised what you can do if you have quality content and an engaged community. Trust me. I know directly that those rates are going up, not down.
Perhaps you should look for a better publication to work for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsweak...buh-bye
Pirates are not to blame, consumers are not to blame, the internet is not to blame, free is not to blame. If blame is what you NEED, check the business model and the product.
THAT is the real TD message that seems to be lost on the paytards each and every day while they attempt to make criminals out of everyone and insisting the situation can be fixed. The real problem is that nothing is broken except legacy business models in a modern world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Newsweak...buh-bye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Newsweak...buh-bye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Newsweak...buh-bye
False. We've been happy when we've seen "old media" do cool things. For example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0127579820.shtml
I don't know why you feel compelled to falsely state what you think our position is on almost everything, but it might help if you stopped doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Citation requested
[ link to this | view in chronology ]