News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion). Parent comment

Re:Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion) by pg on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:51PM (#38901)
Good heavens. Maybe this is why they don't seem to care that their subscriber-only articles are invisible to the rest of the world. I thought they were just backward, but maybe the WSJ is in effect a luxury product.

Come to think of it, though, those numbers could as easily imply that their average reader is very old. So maybe they are backward.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion) by far33d on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:20AM (#38937)
Note that they use "average" instead of median.

I'm sure more super-rich people read it than super-poor people, so this average is a bit aliased.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion) by pg on Friday August 03, 2007 @12:42PM (#39055)
Good point. If Bill Gates subscribes, he alone adds about $33k to the average net worth of their 1.7 million print subscribers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion) by epi0Bauqu on Friday August 03, 2007 @12:52PM (#39062)
I very much doubt a census was taken. The page says the source is from a "2007 WSJ Subscriber Study." It is very doubtful Bill Gates was part of this study. In all likelihood, they polled a relatively small random sample and the median was pretty close to the average.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Print (Newspaper) Ads (Launching -- Discussion) by brett on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:55PM (#38911)
An NPR story I heard the other day brought up a related factor in their stubbornness to go free: unlike most other newspaper subscriptions, most WSJ subscriptions either get paid for by an employer or are written off.
[ Parent | on HN ]