Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/01/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I get the Economist online and audio - and I give the paper edition to my son-in-law. To get my local rag (Chicago Tribunes) and New York Times online, I subscribe to the weekend paper auditions only and trash them. I think that it is because the advertisers value paper subscribers highly. An expensive fiction. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:44 PM Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> wrote: > Of course I do, and a lot more than I used to. The costs for an online > subscription for most magazine is that a years' online subscription costs > roughly 10-15% of what it used to cost for a print subscription for a year > - The Economist is an exception, but not so the FT from the same stable! I > would guess that the net margins for the publishers would be roughly the > same for both types - if you take into consideration the cost of > machinery/paper/consumables/extra staff that it took to put out a print > edition. > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> > wrote: > > > But you still consume the journalism, just online, right? I read more > > newspapers than before, but I too have just one paper subscription, also > > The Economist. In fact, I called them a couple of years ago asking how > much > > cheaper it was just to get the iPad edition. The answer was that it would > > be virtually the same price since I was really paying for the content, > not > > the paper. Fair enough, so I continue to get it both electronically and > on > > paper. The paper edition spends most of its time in the toilet ;-) > > > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > > > Nathan Wajsman > > > > Alicante, Spain > > http://www.frozenlight.eu > > http://www.greatpix.eu > > PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > > Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ > > > > Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator > > > > YNWA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Jan 2015, at 03:09, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I just think this is part of the accelerating trend of the end of print > > journalism. For example, I have long subscribed to around 25 magazines, > and > > I get a hard copy of just one still - The Economist, due to the fact that > > it was a long term subscription. Sign of the times, and the good news > > emanating out of this trend is it will save a few trees, here and > there..... > > > Cheers > > > Jayanand > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > >> On 24-Jan-2015, at 06:54, RicCarter <ric at cartersxrd.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> Damn, I wish you were right, but this is the country in which a large > > percentage of the public buys into fox news... > > >> > > >> ric > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 8:21 PM, Tmanley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> They are "hoping" that the photographers will continue to contribute! > > Hah!!! I hope the photographers boycott forever. Let SI depend on crowd > > sourcing for "good enough" photos. No one will know the difference!! > Hah!!! > > >>> > > >>> Tina > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Leica Users Group. > > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >