OK, what am I missing? I used to subscribe to The Economist and I believe it is the best source for intelligent world news. But it’s expensive and I was hoping that the digital edition would be cheaper.
What I see is that a one year subscription to the print edition (which includes the digital edition) is $127. LINK
And a one year subscription to just the digital edition is $130. LINK
Perhaps they are thinking (they must have done some research on this) that people who read print are more likely to keep subscribing. Every day I get tons of email and actual mail from photographers and illustraters. I rarely bother to look at the emails but I occasionally take a look at the printed material. Not sure why.
But a friend of mine works for a large advertising agency in their marketing department and knows a lot about this kind of stuff. I’ll ask him next time I see him.
I got to see my friend today and I asked him about the Economist subscription. He thinks that the reason for why the print version (plus the digital one) is cheaper is because the Economist thinks that print won’t probably last much longer and they are trying to persuade those who still buy print to switch to digital. I asked why not then make the digital cheaper to begin with and he told me that people who buy print do so because they don’t like digital (no matter the price) and the only way to slowly win them over to the other side is through the printed magazine. I hope it makes sense the way I am explaining it…
I got to see my friend today and I asked him about the Economist subscription. He thinks that the reason for why the print version (plus the digital one) is cheaper is because the Economist thinks that print won’t probably last much longer and they are trying to persuade those who still buy print to switch to digital. I asked why not then make the digital cheaper to begin with and he told me that people who buy print do so because they don’t like digital (no matter the price) and the only way to slowly win them over to the other side is through the printed magazine. I hope it makes sense the way I am explaining it…
Doesn’t make sense to me George. I have to believe that the readers of The Economist are, on average, more intelligent than this reasoning suggests. It simply makes no sense to offer A + B at a cheaper price than B alone - especially when B has almost no material cost (e.g., no paper).
I know, it doesn’t make much sense to me either. My friend seemed pretty confident, though, when he said that they already “own” the digital subscribers because that’s where the industry is headed and are giving the printed subscribers last chance to get hooked on the digital version before the magazine makes the final switch.
Its an ad revenue thing. They get higher ad revenue from print because advertisers think people who buy the print version will look at the ads. The New York Times and other major papers so the same stupid thing.
Its an ad revenue thing. They get higher ad revenue from print because advertisers think people who buy the print version will look at the ads. The New York Times and other major papers so the same stupid thing.
Thanks CT. It’s bullshit, but I think you’re right.
