ADVERTISEMENT



Newsweek Mulls Dramatic Drop in Circulation

Sources: Internal talks of cutting rate base by as many as 1.6 million copies.


By Dylan Stableford and Bill Mickey
12/09/2008

UPDATE: Staff to Be Cut at Newsweek, Too

Facing increased costs of postage and maintaining its circulation, Newsweek has been quietly considering a drop its circulation guarantee by a million copies or more, FOLIO: has learned.

Executives at Newsweek began discussing a rate base rollback as early as this summer, according to a pair of sources familiar with these discussions.

Both sources say that the magazine is considering slashing up to 1.6 million copies from Newsweek’s current rate base of 2.6 million, which would put the magazine’s rate base at 1 million.

Newsweek declined to comment.

“A million [rate base] was the extreme,” said the source. But, as the year wore on, and the economic crisis worsened, “[they] didn’t see a recovery.”

‘Thought Leader’

Aside from the cost of maintaining such a high circulation, Newsweek would like to transition from newsmagazine to “thought leader,” something more akin to the Economist. “[Editor Jon] Meacham and [Time editorial director Richard] Stengel are both infatuated with the Economist,” the source said.  “To get that ‘thought leader’ position, a million is the sweet spot.” The Economist’s rate base in North America is 714,000.

Such a drop in guaranteed circulation is not uncommon, particularly in the newsweekly category. Time cut its rate base by 750,000 copies in January 2007. Newsweek followed suit, dropping 500,000 copies from its circulation in November of that year. [SEE RELATED: Newsweeklies Continue Long, Slow Print Goodbye]

But a cut of this size is nonetheless risky. “To make that jump, you better increase your CPM dramatically,” noted the source, “or you’ll lose millions.”

There’s also public perception, and the risk of looking weak in the eyes of readers and advertisers. “One of the worries is they don’t want to be seen as a U.S. News,” said the source.

Circ Struggles

But such a cut may be inevitable, said newsstand consultant Baird Davis.

“As we all know by now U.S. magazine circulation has been greatly expanded over the last 20 years to meet rising advertising opportunities,” Davis said. “This growth has been achieved largely by acquiring a much greater percentage of ‘non-renewable circ’ than publishers had previously employed." The expansion of non-renewable circ, combined with reduced reader demand has lowered circulation profitability and “reduced ‘reader quality’ for nearly all U.S. magazines.” [SEE RELATED POST: Why it Makes Sense]

“The effects of these rather dramatic changes were partially camouflaged by a strong advertising climate,” Davis said. “When the advertising bubble burst in '08—coupled with a steep increase in paper and postal expense—the industry's circ weaknesses were starkly exposed.”

Another concern is Newsweek's newsstand sales (“a good barometer of reader demand,” Davis said) which have fallen to 83,000 from 147,000 in 2004, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. Time's newsstand circulation has also fallen to 96,000, down from 163,000 four years ago.

“The question now facing many publishers is to find circ levels that are more commensurate with reader demand.”

Paring Down, Ticking Up

RATE BASE 2006 2007 2008
Newsweek 3,100,000 3,100,000 2,600,000
Time 4,000,000 3,250,000 3,250,000
Economist 532,000 595,000 714,000


SOURCE: ABC, June publisher's statements

RELATED LINKS




Post Comment / Discuss This Story - Info/Rules

Why no electronic versions?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 18:21.

They already saw the writing on the wall themselves: http://www.newsweek.com/id/157580 Just convert these 1.6M subscribers to e-version only with an option to buy hardcopy.
Funny
Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 19:00.

This is funny because I just cancelled my subscription to the Economist and was about to subscribe to Newsweek, because I think the Economist's content has become drivel whereas Newsweek's content, when I've found it online, shows breadth of topic and depth of thought. I hope they'll take my subscription!
Charge more for subscriptions?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 21:11.

Why doesn't Newsweek charge more for subscriptions? I subscribe, but I think I paid $25 or something for my year of service. Why not stop giving out cheap subscriptions like candy? I'd be willing to pay much more than I am now, but why on Earth would I do that when I keep getting solicitations for another year at such a low price?
No wonder
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 21:51.

If you recycle articles on your website into your magazine, that would make most people not read the magazine at all. I noticed this with Time as well.
newstweek
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 22:51.

Hi newsteek. Unobjective articles except when written about things. Obama the anti-christ...wow, real journalism there! I cancelled my parents subscription after over 30 years a few years back with no regrets. I grieve they read such tripe for so long, no wonder they didn't know much about the real world around them.
subscription
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 23:11.

Newsweek has been a part of our lives for 50 years, I hope we're not one of the ones cut.
What this actually means
Submitted by Joanie on Tue, 12/09/2008 - 23:42.

Newsweek is not going to be randomly canceling subscriptions, they are going to reduce their circulation guarantee for advertisers. If you are currently subscribed to Newsweek, you will still receive it. If you are thinking of subscribing to Newsweek, go ahead, you will receive the magazine. The only people who will be affected by this (besides Newsweek) will be advertisers who can now pay less for placement in the magazine.
I'm glad I was able to use up my useless US Airways miles
Submitted by paul on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 01:15.

on a 2 year Newsweek subscription.
Print Media will Decline
Submitted by PaPaPeng on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 05:27.

My readership profile is the reason for the decline in print media. I am retired and spend hours each day scouring the online versions of major publications including the Asia Times Online, Economist,the Guardian (UK), Huffington Post, NYT, Der Spiegel, in that order. They provide all the news in good detail that I want for free. The first four publications allow reader comments, many of high quality, to be added to the article. On key articles I copy the article and the comments to a Word doc and file them. I can even highlight key sections in color. This beats cutting up pieces of paper and a paper file. I don't subscribe to my local daily newspapers because each week I have a big pile of paper and flyers I have to store and then get rid of. For local and US news all I need is to read the headlines and I already know most of what the content will be and they are usually not worth reading. Else I go to the library or MacDonalds for the coffee too and catch up on the print news there. The outlook for print media is indeed bleak. To survive in journalism and publications one has to go online only and be free to readers. The problem is what will the revenue source be?
On the way out
Submitted by ramper on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 07:46.

The current issue is a perfect example of what is causing a decline in this magazine. Poorly researching writers and attempts to force feed biased social agendas that continue to erode confidence in competent and professional journalism.
Newsweek Circulation
Submitted by Dave Beckert on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 09:48.

I've been a loyal subscriber for years, but over the last year or so, I found myself picking up most of what I read in the magazine (at a cost) for free off the Internet. To paraphrase their owner, "it's hard to charge for something you're giving away for free."
They Made Their Bed
Submitted by Tony V on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 10:06.

Talk about snow job, how does LOSING readers en masse translate into "oh we want to become a thought leader."? A huge factor they failed to talk about is that on the PR / Word of Mouth front, Newsweek is seen as a "LIBERAL" publication in the mold of the NYTimes. (that just laid of hundreds of people). And with all the favorable Obama coverage vs. unfavorable for McCain during the election season, (statistics show 3 to 1), it was easy to be boxed that way, and Fox News happily obliged. (fairly or unfairly). Media elites (and Dems)love to scoff at this and write it off as "right wing nuts" but they're fools from a business angle. While they're stereotyping Republicans as right wing knuckle draggers they forget that 48% of this country voted against Obama. That's half the country. And while they may be characterized as "RED" their money is still green. And if becoming a thought leader means (1) Losing journalistic objectivity (which turns off independants) (2) Alienating half the country. YOU WILL LOSE 7 out of 7 EVERY WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY.
The Detroit of Journalism
Submitted by Looking for Innovation in News on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 11:14.

Just as U.S. automakers chose to keep their heads stuck in the sand and not be forward-thinking and adapt to the changing trends and times, so, too, have print (and many broadcast) media failed to keep pace. I am a former journalist who got out of the business ten years ago when I saw how "in the box" major media companies were. (I had worked in news for 8 years prior to that, and for some major media companies.) Most news organizations thought that keeping up with current times meant advancing a social agenda and blatantly taking "sides" in political issues, as well as dishing out "celebrity" news. (The thought was that the papers would attract a smaller, but more loyal following if they fed people what they thought they wanted to hear and read.) What they should have been doing was keeping up with technology. And reader trends. Just like PaPaPeng who posted earlier, I haven't read a hard copy of a newspaper in over six years. (The exception is when I travel for business, when I get the newspaper delivered to my hotel room door. But even then, I still go online to check out other news sources before starting my day.) As a news consumer what do I look for in a news site? Three things: (1) Unbiased news (except for the editorials.) That's getting harder and harder to find. (2) Engagement. No, I don't just mean posting a comment about a story: I mean providing readers with real action items they can take on the news story. (And no..again..this doesn't mean answering an online poll question.) As an instructional designer, I found that interactivity and real engagement keep people on an educational course site much, much longer. And the site visitors are far more loyal. And they pay far more for the content. I've always been mystified why news organizations didn't do the same thing. After all, the REAL purpose of the Fourth Estate is to educate, inform, and MOBILIZE the citizenry to take action in our democratic society. (But NOT action that the PAPER wants them to take; action that the consumer feels is in the best interest of democracy.) This would be so simple and so inexpensive to implement, yet, again, newspaper owners keep their heads in the sand on this. Go figure. (3) In-depth reporting. Not a regurgitation of headlines that I can get from TV news, or news that has been reported in every other news outlet. I want to be told something I didn't know before, that is based on solid research, good reporting, and quality sources. Right now, "If you've read one news magazine for the week, or one newspaper for the day , you've read them all" pretty much holds true. Where's the journalism??
They can blame themselves
Submitted by Teacher on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 12:11.

Newsweek had already undercut its circulation by dropping its highly successful education program after 50 years. I'm sure it was expensive to maintain, but millions of students and teachers who used Newsweek in the classroom continued to count on it as a news source later in life. Does this make sense -- to basically say that young people who need to know about the world around them don't matter?
I already dropped
Submitted by gman on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 15:03.

They don't have to drop me, I canceled this year. Could not take their liberal bias anymore. They basically campaigned for Obama. Good ridenence.
Competition abounds
Submitted by bblog on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 16:31.

I read both Time and Newsweek (and a score of other publications, from Maxim to the New Yorker). I recently began noticing how bloody good Time has become. The writing in Time is now personable but not dumbed down, and (often) witty without being snarky. The magazine just *connects* now, with lots of interesting voices and a good dollop of irreverence. Newsweek has suffered by comparison.
Poorly edited FOLIO news story
Submitted by Noel DeKing on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 17:55.

The quote "...you better increase your CPM dramatically" is meaningless since the writer did not define CPM. And a personal note as a 30-year reader of The Economist and a US citizen -- no American weekly will ever match it in quality and leadership, even as it promotes a classic form of economic and political liberalism.
Nice
Submitted by Jim Jones on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 16:14.

Wow, I guess no one is immuneto this economy! jess www.privacy.de.tc
This is the smell...
Submitted by Melissa Hedwall on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 16:23.

of inevitability.
Newsweek - epic fail
Submitted by Mister Fun on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 20:13.

I used to read Newsweek, but it has evolved in to revisionist rubbish. I'm fine for a liberal bent...but their editorial policy is full frontal propaganda. Bad writing, biased reporting and over-the-top editorializing. Good riddance, Newsweek -
Objectivity
Submitted by Lisa Miller is an ignorant puppet on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 11:26.

I am glad they are in a slump. That is exactly what they get for their complete abandonment of objectivity - which is supposed to be the heart of journalism.
Who needs another left-wing rag?
Submitted by FA Hayek on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 18:45.

I'm sorry, but Newsweek abandoned objectivity sometime during the Clinton administration. There will always be a market for balanced, thoughtful reporting! Unfortunately, Newsweek decided (along with Time, the NY Times, Wash Post, LA Times, and every cable network except for Fox) that they would go after the same urban/left-wing market segment that everyone else is pursuing. If they're so smart, why can't they see that they're all going after the same slice of the pie? What about producing a magazine for the majority of Americans --the ones who like their news straight?
newsweek
Submitted by doug on Sat, 12/27/2008 - 12:55.

I subscribed to Newsweek for 36 years, and actually saved my copies for the last 30 years as a historical collection, thinking that they could be worth something someday. However, the extreme leftwing bias of the magazine over the last many years convinced me that I could no longer tolerate having it in my home. They can't stand traditional American patriotism, and would rather cheer for our enemies. These people, along with most of the media, who could not say one positive word about GW Bush, are now practically worshipping Barack Obama. It is sickening. They praise the liberals and slam the conservatives in every issue. I have allowed my subscription to Newsweek to expire. I won't renew, until I hear that they are going to make a commitment to fair coverage for all. I don't think that that is going to happen any time soon. It is sad.
Hey, you, with the 30 year
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 20:15.

Hey, you, with the 30 year collection, you better suck it up and keep subscribing. You collection may be worth something. I wouldn't leave Obama out of your collection. It will decrease in value. You have to admit that the conservatives have put us in the mess we are in. I believe that Newsweek and the New York Times should be come reader owned. I don't know what we would do without publications like them.
Newsweek
Submitted by Stewart on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 14:20.

I recently picked up Newsweek for the first time in several years at the dentist office(without knowing since the cover was ripped off). After 2 or three articles I just couldn't believe it. Just one mind-numbing triviality after the next all Bush bashing and all very left wing. I had to check the masthead to see if I was reading the Nation or something like that. GOOD RIDDANCE.
Glad to hear Newsweek is losing subscribers!
Submitted by Roland on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 16:49.

It's patently obvious their message is not what the public believes. That socialist, left-leaning garbage they put forth these days has no interest for right-thinking Americans. Good riddance, Newsweek!



RECENTLY in Audience Development dots icon
MOST READ on FOLIO: dots icon

FOLIO: Alerts & Newsletters dots icon

Sign up for our news alerts, special offers & feature updates:






CONNECT WITH FOLIO: NOW
   



Find What You Need dots icon

Folio: Marletplace

Seach top vendors, suppliers, service providers & more

Browse & Search the Full Directory Now



CAREER CENTER dots icon

Latest Featured Jobs