Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#21

Post by rm999 »

chm wrote: post #14
osipovas wrote: post #10

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

I had the same issue. Then I found out the Economist puts out a audio version of their entire print edition. My podcast app downloads it automatically every Thursday (using RSS), and it provides me with more than enough content for the week. I listen to it at 1.5x speed and can get through 5-10 articles during my commute.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#22

Post by eddieh »

rm999 wrote: post #3

> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group. Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I've often thought of…

My sentiments exactly. It is a breath of fresh air to see a company depart from a huge multinational like Pearson. Somehow I wasn't aware that Pearson had a stake in the Economist and I frequent "Who Owns What" http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php.

Now that I know I'm not subsidizing Pearson with my subscription, I'll be even happier to renew.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#23

Post by saryant »

chm wrote: post #14
osipovas wrote: post #10

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

If you have airline miles lying around, most programs offer a year subscription for around 5000 miles. No digital access though, just print.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#24

Post by udev »

rm999 wrote: post #3

> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group. Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I've often thought of…

> Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline.

I am more wary of one of those greasy-activist-investor types coming into the picture and demanding the publication "does more for the investors", i.e. more Kardashian-style (garbage) news.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#25

Post by [deleted] »

chm wrote: post #14
osipovas wrote: post #10

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

[deleted]

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#26

Post by molotv »

chm wrote: post #14
osipovas wrote: post #10

My life has changed for the better since subscribing to the Economist in 2011. For me, it's not about paying for content (which is great) but for the 'feeling of being informed'. After reading each issue I feel informed about what is going on around the world. This has sparked many conversations with people from around the world. I hope that following this transition that 'feeling of being informed' will not go away…

I coincidentally also subscribed to the Economist in 2011 and I can relate to the feeling of being informed. However I had to cancel my subscription in 2013 for lack of time. After a while, I could never finish an issue. To be honest I have regretted my decision and I now feed on lesser quality news from "free" sources. It really is a great publication but I couldn't justify the spending or the piling up of issues. I…

The key to reading the Economist is to go into it not planning to read the whole thing.

My approach: Read all the short blurbs in the first couple of pages, then most of the 1/2 page articles that follow, note any that seem interesting, then seek out the longer versions deeper in the issue. As you work through the issue, skip or lightly skim the rest that don't spark interest.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#27

Post by riffraff »

pyre wrote: post #8
potatoman2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with News Corp?

A better question is what do you think isn't wrong with News Corp.?

no it isn't, unless you assume the person you reply to already knows about the topic and is defending it.

But if you consider the question as "I don't know what is wrong with news corp" than it's the best question you can ask.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#28

Post by plg »

The Economist is a prime example of how for-pay curated content can work and can work well to serve a market... a wide market.

Can you imagine, just imagine, how craptastic The Economist would be if it were "free" and all you had to do was endure curated advertisements?

PS I would pay extra if they would stop stapling in those cardboard subscription cards in the middle of the (print) issue.

PPS I feel the same way about the NY Times---worth paying for---although they have gone so broad recently that I'm worried they're becoming unfocused, trying to appeal to too many at once.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#29

Post by floatrock »

udev wrote: post #24
rm999 wrote: post #3

> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group. Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I've often thought of…

> Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I am more wary of one of those greasy-activist-investor types coming into the picture and demanding the publication "does more for the investors", i.e. more Kardashian-style (garbage) news.

You can read all about how good activist investors are in the Economist's cover story a few months back: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642169-why-activist-...

;)

Post reply on HN