Latest Issue Of Newsweek Down To Just Six Ads

from the yes,-six dept

There have been a number of attempts over the past few years to revive the sagging news weekly magazine Newsweek (including an amusing attempt to stop being thought of as a news weekly, despite the name). There's also the still confusing merger with the website The Daily Beast. Still, old media tends to live on well past its sell-by date, as you can usually find enough advertisers who will pay just based on name recognition alone. However, it looks like Newsweek may really be reaching the end of the road as the latest issue apparently could only muster up a grand total of six advertisements. Kind of makes you wonder why they even bothered printing the magazine...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), Apr 13th, 2011 @ 10:47pm

    Why Bother?

    Why bother paying for NewsWeek when you can read all the leftist crappola you want for free at http://socialistworker.org/ ??

    After all, "We're all Socialists Now". Right Apparatchik-holes?

    (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html)

    .
    God Damned Communists.
    .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Old Fool (profile), Apr 13th, 2011 @ 11:25pm

      Re: Why Bother?

      I cant understand why Americans hate communism, its not evil, its just an alternative political system, its like calling heroin evil, its not, its merely an organic chemical.

      In fact Communism is based on 'good' and Capitalism is based on 'evil'.

      Communism is based on people being hardworking, honest and thoughtful. Its just does not work at all, its the failed system.

      Capitalism is based on people being lazy, greedy and selfish, it works just fine and is the best political system we have (until the machines take over).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 13th, 2011 @ 11:52pm

        Re: Re: Why Bother?

        Capitalism is based on people being lazy

        Yes, a cutthroat capitalist system clearly depends on people being lazy and not producing anything. In a truly, 100% capitalist system with no social safety nets to fall back on of any kind, not working is the surest way to guarantee your continued existence. Wait, what?

        A more appropriate comparison:

        Communism is based on equality of outcome.
        Capitalism is based on justice.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 3:49am

        Re: Re: Why Bother????????

        There are usually a lot of bright comments in this blog, but the comparison of Communism to Capitalism is a bit disturbing.

        Why are you comparing a political system to an economic system. Ran out of apples to compare to apples, so you figured why not compare apples to alligators?

        Can we get back to the topic?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:34am

        Re: Re: Why Bother?

        In fact Communism is based on 'good' and Capitalism is based on 'evil'.



        Capitalism is based on freedom of speech, property, and association. Communism fundamentally denies some human rights.



        That fact that capitalism works so much better is a great bonus, but that's not why I support it. I support it because it's the only economic system that's truly ethical.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        JBDragon (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: Why Bother?

        Are you smoking something? You know how many people were KILLED not playing along with Communism. How many people are thrown in jail because of it having done nothing wrong. Right now just take a Look at Cuba, North Korea, China, throw China has been moving more over to Capitalism, kind of a Hybrid of the 2.

        Capitalism is based on people working HARD, making a living off there own work. Hoping to make it BIG! Socialism is for the LAZY, greedy people. You have one group working hard to make money, and then the government comes along and steels a chunk of your money and just gives it away to others that sit on their lazy butt!!! It's never enough, they want more more handouts because they get greedier and greedier, and the Government spends and spends the country into DEPT because there's not enough Rich people to steel money from!!! The lower 40% of the U.S. Population pay ZERO in Federal Taxes. How is that fair again? Spread the Wealth, create a bunch of Lazy & Greedy people that can't go out and get a job because the Government wants people to rely on it and not themselves.

        The U.S. really hasn't been a Capitalist country for the last 100 years. It's been moving to the Left, Socialism for quite some time.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      McCrea, Apr 13th, 2011 @ 11:43pm

      Re: Why Bother?

      "God Damned Communists."

      Politics + Religion = Troll

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        GeneralEmergency (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:03am

        Re: Re: Why Bother?

        You know...

        "Alpaca Damned Communists" just doesn't have that verbal slap up-side-da-head I was going for.

        Tard.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          McCrea, Apr 16th, 2011 @ 3:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Why Bother?

          "Verbal slap up-side-da-head"'s and personal attacks are not constructive, and are characteristic of trolls. Yes, the replied with no on-topic content, and thus re-replied with no on-topic ocntent. Trolling can be identified by both intent and response.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    misterdoug (profile), Apr 13th, 2011 @ 10:59pm

    fond memories

    When I was a kid the first time I saw boobs in a magazine was in my dad's Newsweek, in a short article about Hugh Hefner or the Playboy mansion. There was a shot of a couple bunnies sunbathing topless on a rooftop patio. I remember eagerly flipping through the new issue every Thursday for quite a while after that, but with no luck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DG2580, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 12:14am

    And nothing of value was lost......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Blatant Coward (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:47am

    Buy Newsweek! Now with More news and less advertising!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:05am

    You can blame the pirates for this ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Fzzr (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:05am

    Long Decline

    That was one of my favorite magazines when I was younger, but the quality declined and I lost interest, and I found it in fewer places anyway. Looking at a recent issue, I was surprised by the lack of content.

    Like pretty much anything combining news and dead trees these days, I find it redundant now. I guess I'm kinda the archetypical consumer of news these days in that respect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    David Liu (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:08am

    Was Newsweek that bad, deserving of your scorn? It didn't seem all that bad from the times I've occasionally flipped through it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Griff (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:23am

    Comics

    I once traded in some airmiles I was never going to use for about 6 annual mag subscriptions.

    The Economist stuck (though I consume it mainly in MP3 form while walking the dog) but I remember thinking that Time (and especially Newsweek) were basically comics rather than grown up reading.

    I also ended up with a NewYorker subscription because a previous resident at the address never redirected it, and I always learn something when I read it.

    When it's a quality read or offers a good analysis/summary, a magazine has plenty of future. But when it doesn't even itself know of a reason why it should exist then it deserves to die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 4:02am

    Blah blah blah blah blah....
    The important question no one has asked...

    Were any of the ads for a snuggie!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 4:46am

    Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

    Time and time again, the message from this blog is that publicity will pay for content. Give your stuff away for free and then money will rain down on the sky from big companies that just want to advertise.

    It was mildly amusing to try to read between the lines on this one. Your knee jerk reaction is to condemn anything that an older media company tries to do as wrong headed and clueless. Yet I almost think that you realized halfway through that this was proving what your critics often say: advertising won't pay the bills.

    But I'm sure it's going to be different if some unshaven youngster tries to put out a magazine. Suddenly the six ads will be proof that this is a good idea and publicity can pay for content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      someone (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 6:18am

      Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

      "Give your stuff away for free and then money will rain down on the sky from big companies that just want to advertise. "

      You need to have something of value to "give away" for this to work. A smoking pile of crap will not bring in enough eyeballs to make advertising worth while.

      I think the take home message here is that beating a dead horse will not make it gallop again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 6:54am

      Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

      >>the message from this blog is that publicity will pay for content

      Don't know where you ever read that. Publicity will pay for good content is something I read here often, but I've never read that publicity will pay for just any content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:50am

      Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

      They've lost their audience. Once that happens, it doesn't really matter what they do with their content.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:23am

      Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

      Where did you find all that straw?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 10:00am

      Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

      Time and time again, the message from this blog is that publicity will pay for content. Give your stuff away for free and then money will rain down on the sky from big companies that just want to advertise.

      Um. What?

      Seriously, must you stoop to the level of lying? We have *never* said that at all. In fact, we've said exactly the opposite.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml

      (1) We've never said that "publicity will pay for content." Why do you lie?

      (2) We've never said money will just rain down from the sky. Why do you lie?

      (3) We've never said, nor implied, that companies will rush to advertise. Why do you lie?

      (4) We've discussed, in fact, that building a business is hard work and takes a lot of effort. Why do you lie?

      Seriously, Bob, you owe us an apology.


      It was mildly amusing to try to read between the lines on this one. Your knee jerk reaction is to condemn anything that an older media company tries to do as wrong headed and clueless. Yet I almost think that you realized halfway through that this was proving what your critics often say: advertising won't pay the bills.


      Why do you lie? We never said "advertising will pay the bills." In fact, I've argued that relying solely on advertising is a *bad* business model. It's why *we* don't rely on advertising.

      But, it is worth pointing out that the latest reports out show that ad revenue has jumped up massively. So, Newsweek's failure is hardly a condemnation of advertising. It's a condemnation of Newsweek.

      But I'm sure it's going to be different if some unshaven youngster tries to put out a magazine. Suddenly the six ads will be proof that this is a good idea and publicity can pay for content

      Seriously. You should apologize.

      Do you have anything productive to add or are you just making up shit now?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:25pm

        Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

        An apology? I'm not even sure myself why I bother making the comment section more than an amen section for your preaching.

        First of all, the link you offer has nothing to do with ad revenue. It doesn't even mention it. It's about tip jars and I'm glad to see that you've come around to reality. They're wonderful in theory and useful in some cases, but only marginally effective. If they were better, we would see them more often and NPR and PBS wouldn't be fighting so hard for subsidies.

        Now there are a number of times when you do discuss ad revenue and lately it's been in postings bashing the NY Times. The thesis you advance a number of times is that the loss of ad revenue won't be replaced with subscriber income. That was certainly the effect the NYT noticed the first time they tried the paywall back when people were still willing to spend dramatically more for ads. But times have changed, user-generated content is abounding, and so advertising just isn't worth as much. That's why the NYT < levity > changed with the times</ levity >.

        So go back and read what you've written about the NY Times. The message is always: paywall is bad and so ad revenue is the better solution. My only point is that you can't maintain that Newsweek is a failure for not selling ads and the NY Times is failure because they're trying to escape reliance on ads.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

          An apology? I'm not even sure myself why I bother making the comment section more than an amen section for your preaching.

          You flat out lied about my position. Yes, you owe me an apology. I'm waiting.

          First of all, the link you offer has nothing to do with ad revenue.

          No, it was in response to your first lie, that I say "publicity will pay for content."

          I'm glad to see that you've come around to reality

          Huh? I've never said otherwise. Why would you say I've "come around to reality" when my position has been constant. Please. Stop lying.

          Now there are a number of times when you do discuss ad revenue and lately it's been in postings bashing the NY Times. The thesis you advance a number of times is that the loss of ad revenue won't be replaced with subscriber income. That was certainly the effect the NYT noticed the first time they tried the paywall back when people were still willing to spend dramatically more for ads.

          Actually, ad rates have gone up substantially since then.

          Seriously. Just stop.

          So go back and read what you've written about the NY Times. The message is always: paywall is bad and so ad revenue is the better solution.

          Yes. Ads are a better solution. Not the best, but better.

          My only point is that you can't maintain that Newsweek is a failure for not selling ads and the NY Times is failure because they're trying to escape reliance on ads.

          Then your point is stupid and wrong. First, it's ridiculous to generalize that because ONE publication has trouble selling ads that ads don't work. The whole point is how one publication failed to do much.

          Finally, I *want* the NY Times to get away from a reliance on ads. I've said for a long time that relying on ads is a bad business model (contrary to your lies). But ads are a *better* business model than a paywall. My point is not to "bash" the NY Times, it's to *bash* a bad business decision. I like the NY Times and want them to succeed. That's why I bash the stupid idea of putting up a paywall.

          My goodness. Please tell me you don't work for a journalism outfit. If you do, can you tell me how to short your stock?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            bob, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 2:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

            Perhaps the problem is that you're misreading what I said. When I said, "publicity will pay for ads", I meant that included all of the publicity generated for the people buying ads. Ads are a form of publicity and this is what web sites are selling when they sell ads. It's a more general term that includes sponsorship.

            Okay, so you want the NYT and Newsweek to get away with a reliance on ads, but you don't want them to set up a paywall. So what is your plan? More t-shirts?

            And no ad rates haven't gone up. GOOG's share price is down 5.43% since the market closed and they reported that their revenue wasn't meeting expectations.

            Ad spending is going up, but it's being spread thinner and thinner as the amount of inventory goes through the roof thanks to social media sites and other places that don't share this with the writers. Sites that pay their writers can't compete with the huge surplus of ad space on the social sites. Even Google is getting squeezed.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 15th, 2011 @ 9:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm. I thought publicity was going to pay for content

              Perhaps the problem is that you're misreading what I said. When I said, "publicity will pay for ads", I meant that included all of the publicity generated for the people buying ads. Ads are a form of publicity and this is what web sites are selling when they sell ads. It's a more general term that includes sponsorship.

              No. They're selling *attention*. They're not selling publicity. But even if I accept your definition of publicity here, that is NOT what you said at all. You clearly implied that my position was you just sit back and money comes to you. Which is not my position at all.

              You do have to work hard to find scarcities to sell. Not being good at sales means you fail. Like Newsweek.

              Okay, so you want the NYT and Newsweek to get away with a reliance on ads, but you don't want them to set up a paywall. So what is your plan? More t-shirts?

              Do you really think the options are ads, paywall or t-shirts? My goodness. You should have attended our Techdirt Saves Journalism* event last year, where we discussed all sorts of interesting business models.

              It certainly depends on the publication, but they can certainly sell attention in *more creative ways*. We do quite well by selling the insight of our community (not you obviously, but others). We also sell the attention, but not just in "ads," but through creative deals that go way beyond ads towards creating compelling content, engaging with our audience etc. Other interesting money makers include events, salons, etc. Some publications are doing some interesting things with selling access. We've had a surprising number of people buy our "day with Techdirt." And we're tiny. If you had a large pub that really connected with fans, they'd be able to sell lots of interesting things...

              It's all about connecting with the community though, not treating them like riffraff.

              And no ad rates haven't gone up. GOOG's share price is down 5.43% since the market closed and they reported that their revenue wasn't meeting expectations.

              Heh. Google is the epitome of remnant inventory. Do not take Goog's issues as an indicator of the rates of ads on *quality* content. If you have quality content, trust me, ad rates are up... You just need to be good at it. Perhaps whoever you work for is not.

              Ad spending is going up, but it's being spread thinner and thinner as the amount of inventory goes through the roof thanks to social media sites and other places that don't share this with the writers. Sites that pay their writers can't compete with the huge surplus of ad space on the social sites. Even Google is getting squeezed.

              Heh. You'd be surprised what you can do if you have quality content and an engaged community. Trust me. I know directly that those rates are going up, not down.

              Perhaps you should look for a better publication to work for.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jokerswild (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 6:52am

    I will miss it at the doctors and dentist offices but that's about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 7:17am

    The failure of NewsWeek is inevitable, as was the loss of advertising. The title says it all "News" "Week". We live in a world of instant news. Who really wants to read news from a week ago. Its one of the same 3 problems facing newspapers, by the time its in print its already very old news.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Newsweak...buh-bye

    In the modern age where news travels the globe in minutes or even seconds, any kind of weekly news is obsolete by the time it's printed, much less delivered then read. Media, especially news and entertainment, needs to be more timely in todays instantaneous society.

    Pirates are not to blame, consumers are not to blame, the internet is not to blame, free is not to blame. If blame is what you NEED, check the business model and the product.

    THAT is the real TD message that seems to be lost on the paytards each and every day while they attempt to make criminals out of everyone and insisting the situation can be fixed. The real problem is that nothing is broken except legacy business models in a modern world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Apr 14th, 2011 @ 9:16am

      Re: Newsweak...buh-bye

      Funny thing ... being a TechDirt insider ... makes me a paytard in a way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        bob, Apr 14th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re: Newsweak...buh-bye

        Yup. But TechDirt only bashes paying when the old media does it. If Time-Life sends you a free t-shirt for subscribing to a magazine, that's a tired, old business model that will just die. But if TechDirt sells you a t-shirt and throws in the content for free, that's a total cool, hip business model that's really with it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Apr 15th, 2011 @ 8:29am

    Really?

    "If Time-Life sends you a free t-shirt for subscribing to a magazine, that's a tired, old business model that will just die."

    Citation requested

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This