Comments on: For Sale: BusinessWeek

By: Jojo

Jojo — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:42:24 +0000

Agreed Bob/Krice. The magazine is very thin these days with little useful or interesting content.

I haven’t paid for BW in years as I’ve always used a few airline miles to renew a subscription. But I can’t find BW on the airline reward sites anymore, so will let my current subscription expire.

By: karen

karen — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:28:32 +0000

I just found out about this electronic publication today! “think money”

https://www.thinkorswim.com/tos/displayPage.tos?webpage=thinkMoney

By: donna

donna — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:56:53 +0000

Eh. BUsiness Weak hasn’t been worth reading for years. Or much of anything else out of McGraw HIll, really…

By: krice2001

krice2001 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:55:53 +0000

@ Bob
“BusinessWeek magazine is a mere shell of itself. I’ve subscribed for many years, and just three years ago or so I used to look forward to the magazine’s arrival in my mailbox.
However, of late, the maazine has been dumbed down so much, that there is usually a pile of three or four waiting to be skimmed through.”

I think you nailed it. I still have a subscription but am planning to let it run out and not renew. I find I have to skip more and more regular sections because they are worthless. Maria Bartiromo (sp?) interviews (now a regular feature), I find annoying. I skip the “yellow page” economic view which is poorly researched and always polyanna-ish. There’s less and less in Business Week that I find I can actually read.

By: Bob the unemployed

Bob the unemployed — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:31:10 +0000

> the focus of the mag even back then was advertising $$$.

That is the fundamental business model of any magazine. The magazine sells the attention of its readers to the advertisers.

BusinessWeek’s problem was not in that focus, the problem was that BusinessWeek lowered the quality of the readers in order to increase the quantity of readers, figuring the overall revenue would increase. The revenue did not increase enough, and BusinessWeek found itself with a readership base that the advertisers were not willing to pay a premium dollar for.

By: babygal

babygal — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:02:13 +0000

I worked for BusinessWeek for about 2 years back around 85. Although, the editors were real nice guys, the focus of the mag even back then was advertising $$$.

By: MRegan

MRegan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:55:52 +0000

BW should be bought for its archives. As a going concern, its future seems pretty bleak.

By: Bob the unemployed

Bob the unemployed — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:22:02 +0000

BusinessWeek magazine is a mere shell of itself. I’ve subscribed for many years, and just three years ago or so I used to look forward to the magazine’s arrival in my mailbox.

However, of late, the maazine has been dumbed down so much, that there is usually a pile of three or four waiting to be skimmed through.

BusinessWeek wasn’t hurt by competition from the Internet, BusinessWeek was hurt by incompetence from within. In trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of business news, BusinessWeek forgot who its audience was.

By: Mark E Hoffer

Mark E Hoffer — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:18:30 +0000

Further proof People don’t like being lied to, either by commision, or omission, and like it less when they are paying for it..

to be clear, yes, re: Business Week.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omission
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Commission
see n. #3

By: ben22

ben22 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:31:38 +0000

BR,

I bet everything regarding McGraw-Hill catches your eye after the Bailout Nation debacle. Screw them.