Comments on: The Atlantic on the success of The Economist

By: The meaning of “liberal” « Echolocation

The meaning of “liberal” « Echolocation — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:51:34 +0000

[...] makes me a little crazy The meaning of “liberal” August 21, 2009 Writer Andreas Kluth, discussing the Michael Hirschorn article on The Economist that I quoted in an earlier post, says [...]

By: andreaskluth

andreaskluth — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:35:41 +0000

I don’t know the latest numbers, Christopher, but by way of explanation:

“Circulation” refers to the total number of copies out there in a given week. “Newsstand” (kiosk) sales are a small fraction of circulation. The rest is subscriptions.

I think about 40% of our circulation is in America. Time and Newsweek have foreign editions, but they are almost entirely “American”.

You shouldn’t be surprised that the total numbers for Time and Newsweek are still larger than The Economist’s. They are mass-market magazines that are now shrinking and re-focussing; The Economist is a “niche” magazine that is now growing.

In general, we don’t look at what “the American” or “the European” expects to read about. We visualize our readers more in terms of demographic/culture/sophistication, irrespective of nationality.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:05:20 +0000

Michael Hirschorn give out figures about the popularity of the Economist which puzzle me, and which you may be able to clarify. He said that the Economist’s circulation in the US is 800,000. And he said that 75,000 copies of the Economist are sold each week on US newsstands.

What, then, does this figure of 800,000 mean?

Whatever it means, it is far less than the “circulation” for Time (3.4 million), or for Newsweek (2.7 million). However, these numbers for Time and Newsweek don’t indicate what percentage is “foreign”. But Hirschorn did say elsewhere that Newsweek’s American “circulation” is bigger than the Economist’s. So I assume that Time, too, has a bigger American “circulation” than the Economist.

Therefore the American, by a large margin, still prefers Time and Newsweek in total. So Time and Newsweek must still be getting much right, at least for the American.

As for 75,000 copies of the Economist sold weekly at American newsstands, this doesn’t seem much, given there are 300 million Americans. So I assume that most of the Economist’s print readers are outside America, perhaps because in most countries outside America, (and particularly outside Europe) the internet is far less ubiquitous in homes.

Michael Hirschorn, in the video clip, said, in so many words, that the focus of Time and Newsweek is Washington, as if it is the place the world revolves around. But the foreigner doesn’t, by and large, see it this way. Hence, the attraction for the foreigner of the Economist over Time or Newsweek; and hence, the attraction for the American of Time and Newsweek over the Economist, since the American, in general, sees Washington as the place the world revolves around.

By: Mr. Crotchety

Mr. Crotchety — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:54:46 +0000

Content aside, the absence of in-your-face advertisements does a lot for me. Paying for an expensive subscription is an affordable luxury. There’s a whole parallel universe in which I try to live that is quieter (literally, figuratively). This applies to all the media, except perhaps the ‘free’ e-mail service. Yahoo and Gmail are both still free, but Yahoo is like driving thru a strip mall listening to adds on the radio (loudly). I’m not a good consumer because I can’t deal (not a snob, a whimp).

By: andreaskluth

andreaskluth — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:50:38 +0000

As in: Niche-y but global? Yes, sort of.

But: Starbucks is doing badly, whereas The Economist is (still) doing well; Starbucks went tacky and cheap whereas The Economist (still) has not.

But but: You consume too much in either, and your ears ring.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:25:03 +0000

How about that the Economist is the Starbucks of the journalistic world?