

Wal-Mart nukes the magazine industry - nickb
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/01/wal-mart-nukes.html

======
falsestprophet
Although the magazine business in general depends on Walmart for 20% of their
sales, I think it is likely that the large magazines that were cut (like The
New Yorker, The Economist, Fortune, Forbes, and Businessweek) did not resonate
with the Walmart audience.

I don't know how many Walmarts are in Silicon Valley. But, as far as I know,
there are none in the city limits of Chicago and New York. In general, wealthy
people don't shop at Walmart.

How many people do you think buy jeans at Walmart and in the next breath ask
where they can find The Economist? Has Mark Anderson even been to Walmart?

I think these magazines will survive for now.

~~~
dcurtis
I don't think the divide is as big as you think-- lots and lots of upper-
middle class people shop at Walmart because of its convenience. They probably
don't buy jeans there because those are status items, but they do buy things
like electronics, movies, books, magazines, food, etc.

The business magazines are probably the lowest sellers, but for Walmart that
means millions upon millions of purchases. It's still an enormous blow to
those magazines. But probably not enough to put them out of business, of
course.

~~~
mattmaroon
You and I know different upper middle class people. If you walk into a
Walmart, that definitely is not the apparent demographic.

The middle class and up seems to prefer Target.

~~~
rms
I would agree with dcurtis, Walmart is not exclusively lower class. It's not
the lower class buying things like this:
<http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7756623>

~~~
pchristensen
Lots of savvy higher-income shoppers know that paying $2 extra to buy a DVD or
$5 extra to buy a video game somewhere else doesn't mean you got a better
product. For commodities like packaged foods, batteries, household products,
electronics, toys, etc that are the same no matter where you buy them, Wal-
Mart is 10-20% cheaper than even Target. The reason more upper income people
don't like Wal-Mart is either a) politics or b) many of the older stores are
crowded and dirty and it's worth paying a little extra to have a more pleasant
experience. I'm one of the second type, but there's a brand new Wal-Mart near
my house that's the nicest big-box store I've ever shopped in, and since
there's no "crowded and dirty tax" for me to pay, I do most of my shopping
there and save some decent money each month.

~~~
mattmaroon
I agree with you entirely. a is a small factor, b is a huge one, and c (image)
is another. Many people don't want to be seen in a WalMart. It's silly, I
admit, but it's most definitely true, and the way Target has taken advantage
of those is perhaps the greatest untold story in the history of capitalism.

------
ivankirigin
I would pay for an Ad free version of Wired. Keeping my outlook unsoiled by
ads is more important than reading their articles.

This move is a bit premature though, as electronic formats don't have the
ummph of paper. That is distinctly unlike music.

~~~
myoung8
I actually enjoy looking at the ads in Wired because they are usually highly
relevant.

------
daniel-cussen
I think this will be pretty damaging. The average cost of a magazine goes up
if sales go down. A 20% cut of retail sales could lead to greater losses down
the road, and if other stores follow suit, magazines start dying out really
fast.

The might go the way of the buggy whip; I could see them being obsolete if
screen resolutions improve. I wonder how they'll try to resist the change.
They'll probably say computers are a nerdy format, it's nicer to read on
paper, and it's got better content. I hope they don't start trying to get
protection laws passed. It may be tempting for them, given that magazines have
a lot of reach. It would be unpleasant to see them try to get protected, and
disappointing if they succeed at everyone else's expense.

------
joshwa
Magazines-- there's a business looking for a reboot. (That said, my wife works
at a major magazine, so not too soon, please!)

