NEWSPAPERS ARE losing circulation at a pretty rapid clip. Television ratings are down compared to past years, largely because there is just so much competition out there. And the mag business is as difficult as ever (most magazines don't last 5 years).
But here is a story about a British-based, global magazine - The Economist - that is not only surviving, but thriving.
"The magazine expects to show 13% circulation growth in its upcoming filing, on top of the 8.5% jump in the number of advertising pages in 2007," reports MarketWatch. "With a circulation of about 722,000 in North America now -- and more than 1.3 million in total -- the magazine intends to crack the 1 million threshold on this continent in the next five years."
The amazing thing? They actually do serious, investigative journalism on a weekly basis. They take a world perspective on events from the war in the Middle East to nanotechnology.
"The Economist tries -- hard -- to reach smart people, eschewing the kind of broad audience that Time and Newsweek target," the MarketWatch story continues. "In other words, don't expect to see Britney Spears or her ilk grace the cover of the Economist."
Do we need to give readers their Britney covers to lure them to read the real news inside the magazine (or newspaper, website or television newscast)? Or will Americans actually read probing reports that don't involve celebrity exploits?
1 year ago