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

71–80 of 151 posts

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

#71

Post by Retric »

eterm wrote: post #63
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 1$/week you can pay for 1 author per ~2,000 subscribers. That can work at a really small scale as long as the rest of your costs are kept low.

$1/week is a lot for what a single author could put out. If you take into account time researching, I can't imagine that would amount to more an article per week at any kind of quality?

Let's say you have 40k readers and 50/50 overhead vs writers. So, 40k people pay 1$ and get to read the output from ~10 writers. Now, get another ~2k people to sign up and that just about covers another author assuming your overhead does not increase.

Clearly, you can play with these numbers with various assumptions and readerships. But, the point is you can scale things down with paid subscribers.

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

#72

Post by da_chicken »

davidw wrote: post #51
LukeHoersten wrote: post #15

When I read about topics in which I have first hand experience, I feel The Economist does an excellent job of portraying the facts and different perspectives. This almost never happens in any mainstream media, especially regarding technology and trading. Therefore, I trust The Economist on topics in which I don't have first hand experience. They rarely let me down. I hope this continues and it seems they believe it w…

Yes - I recall reading it at a friend's house in the late 90ies, talking about open source software. I expected a bit more negative reaction from a business-oriented publication, but they had most of their facts right and seemed to have a pretty good take on things. I subscribed afterwards myself. I also love the fact that they got into a legal tussle with Berlusconi after having called him not fit to lead Italy - an…

They let that speak for itself, too:

http://www.economist.com/node/12076765

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

#73

Post by M2Ys4U »

venomsnake wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its what would happen if a publishing company was run by Darth Vader and the Emperor, with occasional consulting performed by Dick Cheney.

Well Glenn Beck was as close as you could get to Jar Jar binks ...

Jar Jar Binks is far more likeable.

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

#75

Post by selectodude »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #39
plg wrote: post #28

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 ab…

I fear The Economist may be one of the only examples of how for-pay content can work. (Not curated, their content is original.) I'd love to know more about how well it's working for The Economist, too, is there anything public about their financials?

http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...

Operating profit of £60m, up 2%

Circulation of The Economist robust at 1.6m

13% increase in gross profit from circulation

Final dividend up 5.5%

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

#76

Post by atmosx »

plg wrote: post #28

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 ab…

I was a subscriber for 4 years and I can confirm that the Economist is crap. It looks good compared to other choices like 'Times' or 'Newsweek' which are totally unreadable.

* It has totally absurd double-standards: Russia, Iran, China and their puppets (e.g. Syria and so forth) are 'bad' and 'evil'. US, EU and the UK stand for 'justice and peace in the world'. If your world-view is so naive, then you deserve the economist.

* You never know the author. You never know the actual author's background so reading between the lines is (in the beginning at least) hard

* It has it's own view of economics, which most of the times is miles apart from the academia: If I had to choose between 'Buttonwood'[1] and Paul Krugman, I'd go with Krugman any day of the week. Having different opinion is one thing, diverting from mainstream academia views CONSTANTLY on 101 macro-economics is another.

* The Economist is extremely PRO-WAR. There is NOT ONE instance that I recall the economist NOT backing a war: Afghanistan, Iraq... Latest one was Syria. The magazine's editor, openly called for the USA to attack Syria. The article (main article btw) was awful and brutal.

Are there any good articles in there? Of course. There are many good articles featuring in the Economist. But overall it's not nearly as good and fair as most people think it is.

I don't know if the editor changed after 2004, but me and many other readers have the feeling that after 2004-5 the quality dropped incrementally.

Generally speaking I found "The New Yorker" to be the best[2] magazine so far. I think part of the reason is that it's not on the spotlight so much, as the 'Economist' and the authors receive less pressure to push a specific agenda.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttonwood

[2] When I say 'best' in this context I mean avoiding 'double standards' giving everyone a voice and so on. For example check out the articles on Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden or any controversial figure in the Economist vs New Yorker. The New Yorker features interviews, articles and views from both parties, not only from the US gov. The Economist on the other hand even when it tries to be fair to someone, uses diminutive terms like "unorthodox", "unconventional", "self-proclaimed", etc. That's not journalism, that's manipulation. The worst form of manipulation.

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

#77

Post by AndyMcConachie »

Ollinson wrote: post #40
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 subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a pol…

In general I agree. I stopped reading the economist since they often approach stories as if they only have 1 or 2 sides. I would rather read more nuanced long articles on fewer issues.

There is a sort of sophmoric danger zone WRT being informed on any issue. Sometimes you can be informed enough to discuss something, but lack a proper nuanced understanding from multiple sides.

I'm fickle when it comes to magazines, but I still love reading them. My latest infatuation is Harpers. However, in their latest issue they wrote a medium length piece on something in my area of expertise, and kinda did a poor job of it. This makes me question the quality of their other pieces on subjects that I am less familiar with.

I have some formal training in economics, but not enough to call myself an economist. However, even I can see that the economist performs their economic narrative generation a bit too neatly. They leave out nuance in favor of length.

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

#78

Post by IkmoIkmo »

Ollinson wrote: post #40
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 subscribed to the economist sometime in the middle of 2012 and did not have a positive experience. I'm convinced that much of the allure of the economist comes from that it is frank contrarian news source. I don't like the anonymous authorship for reasons which have been stated on hacker news in other economist posts. The economist is sneaky. All of the articles are fact/numbers based and then shoehorned with a pol…

I do agree that the economist is a bit sneaky like that, I think the latter part of your post is spot on. But I do feel that it's not at ALL a contrarian news source.

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

#79

Post by IndianAstronaut »

kanwisher wrote: post #31
plg wrote: post #28

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 ab…

Economist is the only publication i pay for. I'm not sure how many newspapers/magazines could really follow suit. There is only so many high quality sources anyone can read, its a small niche I think. Also the average economist reader is probably quite high on income so I suspect thats a skews their ability to charge

One thing I enjoy about it is the audio edition. It is done well and allows me to enjoy the Economist on the go without sinking too much time into it.

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

#80

Post by IndianAstronaut »

Ollinson wrote: post #66
saryant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any given issue the Middle East & Africa section is 4-5 pages long, hardly a "blurb".

That's 4-5 pages that claim to adequately cover the financial and political current events of 71 countries I think I'm justified in being skeptical.

Is there any news source which gives that level of detail?
Post reply on HN