The Wall Street Journal fired back at The New York Times story yesterday about Murdoch’s newspaper affinity dragging down News Corporation shares.
We thought it was a nicely done piece, but the Journal (or its chief marketing officer, anyway) says it had several flaws. It’s most irritated, of course, by the Times’s assertion that the WSJ is holding its circulation steady in part by heavily discounting subscriptions.
Like most subscription newspapers, the Journal uses discounted offers to attract new subscribers. However, in 2008 the Journal moved away from deep discounting and raised the introductory offer and newsstand pricing by nearly 40%. Even with higher prices across the board, Individually Paid Circulation continues to grow in an industry that is largely shrinking. Print circulation revenue for the most recent quarter was up by nearly 9% over the year prior.
And here’s some trademark Murdoch (emphasis mine):
“The New York Times may choose to speculate and offer its opinions in its business coverage, and there were many erroneous assumptions and speculations made in the story. However, regarding our circulation strategy and recent strong success, the Times simply got it wrong today,” said Paul Bascobert, chief marketing officer for Dow Jones & Company and The Wall Street Journal.
But this doesn’t say what the Times actually got wrong. The NYT was quoting the Journal’s own filing with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, and it quoted hard numbers. If the Journal wants to dispute that, it should give us its own hard numbers.
I know firsthand that the Journal is giving out serious discounts (or at least was as late as September). I got a year’s subscription to the paper and the Web site for $100, far below the list prices. The Times gets that much out of me every three months just for the paper.
And so far the NYT hasn’t corrected its story. I don’t blame them. Until the Journal spells out exactly what the Gray Lady got wrong, it looks like Rupert’s just blowing smoke (maybe from being heated about having to apologize for the Post’s chimp cartoon).
(hat tip: Chris Roush)
Rupert Murdoch is an evil man with far too much control on our media. Please boycott his papers and other media stations and tell those that advertise on his networks that you will no longer support them if they continue to give their advertising dollars to those media outlets.
It is time to change the way we do business in this country and we shouldn't accept his lame apology.
Everything Matters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6uVvM4iF8
#1 Posted by Everything Matters, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 11:21 AM
question for you, Ryan...did you bag the student discount rate? that's what it sounds like...
#2 Posted by Dan McGlinchey, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 11:41 AM
No student rate for me, Dan, I'm too old for that. Plus I don't think Columbia would admit me!
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 11:56 AM
I have to commend the Wall Street Journal for the clever re-designing of it's pages. Why it looks just like... The New York Times. But unfortunately looks alone does not make a paper great. While the New York Times has a somewhat liberal slant, it does report news that affects all of society, not just the business community. And the paper has some of the best writers on the planet. And what has the journal done for us lately. Well, they've teamed up with Murdoch and the extremists from the right. (sounds like a 'F'-upped rock group). Regular op-ed pieces by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove grace the opinion pages. What has this done to the Wall Street Journal? It has gone from being an business objective newsdaily to being a subjective voice for the right wing. The strategy will only hurt Dow Jones & Co., because true businessmen don't necessarily care about all of the political chatter. They just want to make money. Street savvy wall streeters will begin to look elsewhere for their politically unclouded business news. Who wants to read a business paper if they don't know why it is anti-Obama. (Do we hate Obama because he's Obama, or because of his fiscal thinking). Wall Street Journal readers used to know the answer to those questions. But since Murdoch took over, the paper is just an extension of FOX news. Bloomberg and Investor's Daily, get ready..... there are a lot subscribers headed your way... from the Wall Street Journal.
#4 Posted by RobertOrr, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 12:24 PM
By the way. I love Obama and his fiscal policies. It's about time we have a President who thinks from the bottom up. When the masses have means to sustain themsevles, everyone benefits. Because the masses are conduit for the wealthy to pass wealth among themselves.
#5 Posted by RobertOrr, CJR on Tue 24 Feb 2009 at 12:34 PM