Reasons to buy Newsweek

By Felix Salmon
May 5, 2010
Ken Layne has by far the funniest and most cutting reaction to the Newsweek news, but it's Jeff Bercovici who nails the conventional wisdom:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Ken Layne has by far the funniest and most cutting reaction to the Newsweek news, but it’s Jeff Bercovici who nails the conventional wisdom:

If Allen & Co. can succeed in finding a buyer for Newsweek, it will likely be the sort of transaction in which the Post Co. accepts a nominal sum just to rid itself of the expense of publishing a money-hemorrhaging weekly magazine.

I’m a little bit more optimistic, because at heart the circulation numbers at Newsweek are still extremely impressive, even if they’re well down from their highs. The US rate base is 1.5 million, there’s another 460,000 English-language copies sold each week internationally, and 560,000 foreign-language copies as well. Then of course there’s the website on top, which attracts a respectable 5 million uniques.

Those numbers are more than high enough to sustain a seriously profitable business; the problem is that Newsweek had a much larger rate base — of 3.1 million — as recently as 2008, and it has necessarily suffered as its staff and circulation has shrunk.

There are two big problems facing Newsweek, but neither is insurmountable. The first is that it can’t afford to have a huge newsgathering and editorial staff any more. The occasional fabulous feature about Oprah is wonderful to have, but those things can be bought from freelancers: they don’t need to be written by expensive staffers. Newsweek is not going to break much if any news, and it shouldn’t spend a fortune trying: instead it must aggregate, curate, and add value with a range of expert and reliable voices. Think of it as a more honest, less pretentious, and less anonymous version of the Economist.

The flipside of that problem is that Newsweek has to be able to rise above the rest of the bloggy commentariat. Ezra Klein, one of WPNI’s biggest stars, writes today about the plight of the Economist and other highbrow mags:

Those magazines write reported, analytical (and opinionated) articles for a sophisticated audience. But because their publishing cycles are slow, they’ve not traditionally been major players in the day-to-day conversation. But now you’ve got people who trained at those magazines and adopted their sensibilities writing at internet speed, which is to say, faster than the daily cycle. And that’s working, I think. At the very least, it’s working with elite audiences.

Newsweek is actually in a strong competitive position here: elite audiences are more comfortable making their own judgments about what’s worth reading and what isn’t, and coming to the conclusion that they get better analysis from say Rortybomb than they do from any of their print publications. But most of Newsweek’s readers don’t read blogs, or consider it to be in competition with blogs. They’re comfortable getting their news analysis weekly, in a trustworthy format, rather than multiple times per day in a format which requires active, critical reading.

As a long-term investment, the demographics of any print product look bad. Newsweek’s audience is old, it’s getting older, and it’s hard to imagine the social-media generation having so much awe and respect for its authority that they will buy it weekly to find out what’s going on in the world. And the economics of distributing a weekly news magazine are extremely painful: it costs a huge amount of money to print and distribute all that paper every week, when you don’t have the luxury that monthly magazines have of long lead times at the printers.

But printing technology is advancing fast, and it’s easier than ever for magazines to print relatively small runs in dozens if not hundreds of non-union locations around the world. A new and nimble network of local ad-sales teams can fashion custom versions of the product to targeted demographics, with a relatively small central publisher’s office handling the big buys across the global franchise. And the editorial product will be a bit like Google search results: universally authoritative, while still looking significantly different depending on where and who you are.

And internationally, where Newsweek has an enviable and demographically very high-end footprint, there’s more respect and hunger for authoritative news analysis. Besides, for the next couple of decades at least there will still be tens of millions of Americans who don’t like consuming such things by reading screens, and are much happier sitting back in the garden or on the couch with a high-res paper product.

Getting from today’s Newsweek to tomorrow’s will be painful, and will involve lay-offs; the buyer will naturally want WPNI to pay for those. So depending on how the deal is accounted for, Bercovici might be right about the headline price. But Newsweek is one of only a handful of highly-respected global news brands, and in a shrinking world that should be more valuable than ever.

Comments
6 comments so far

Hi everyone,

I wrote an article you guys might be interested in. It’s about Dodd’s new financial regulation bill.

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2010/05/d odds-financial-reform-bill-is-black.html

Thanks. Hope things are going well.

Josh

Posted by JoshFulton | Report as abusive

Newsweek is done… The news cycle at present is real-time and Newsweek doesn’t report real news. Newsweek is an opinionated leftist rag and it needs to die a slow painful death.

Posted by BigDaveDeluxe | Report as abusive

I also fear that Newsweek is toast. Felix, I believe you provided the link to Clay Shirky’s blog addressing this topic (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/04/th e-collapse-of-complex-business-models/). The question is whether to believe what you say above, or to believe Clay. I vote for Clay.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

Never say die, folks. When they put a Desperate Newswife on Page Three things will really start to take off. People might then start buying it for the articles.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

I used to subscribe to Newsweek, but it became increasingly left wing. When it finally concluded, on the cover as I recall, that anyone who didn’t buy into the Global Warming theory with all their heart and soul was a “denier” and “flat earther,” I finally gave up.

If there was a news magazine out there that did what Newsweek used to do (i.e., provide more thoughtful, in-depth coverage of the week’s news events that wasn’t available for free online), I would definitely subscribe. I just don’t see that magazine out there.

Time, Newsweek, the Nation and so on are all leftist to some degree. The Weekly Standard, the National Review and so on all hang on the right wing. What happened to moderate journalism that tries extremely hard to employ more or less centrist journalists to produce more or less centrist news? It’s all been replaced by commentary dressing itself up as though it were news.

And the media wonder why people aren’t buying anymore?

Posted by StanGahpa | Report as abusive

I’ve been a subscriber for years, and I just let my subscription lapse. I consider myself left-wing, but do not consider the magazine’s recent changes to represent my perspective (the lapse into a male-dominated sexism was quite disappointing). But I do agree that Newsweek had stopped meeting my needs for a review of the week’s news. I live outside the US, and used to be able to rely on Newsweek to keep me in touch with events back home. But since its makeover about a year ago, it stopped doing that. It had become more essay, personalities, commentary, career-building – the Beltway Voice. The quality of the work was largely quite good, but I did not pay for that kind of magazine. I had just picked up a copy of Time and the Economist to see which would be my new subscription, so this news does not surprise me. But I do miss the old Newsweek. There is still a market for a print news weekly; alas, Newsweek forgot how to be that.

Posted by troutlily | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/