

Wall Street Journal now the #1 selling US newspaper - credo
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSTRE59904820091010

======
jacquesm
It's no reason for celebration if your main competitor and #1 drops 17% and
you only gain 0.5% compared to a year earlier.

That means your industry is in serious trouble.

~~~
jonknee
... And you gained .5% because you can count online subscriptions as
subscriptions. They didn't break it out but I bet they had a similar dive in
paper sales.

~~~
simon_
Keep in mind that WSJ charges a substantial fee for online subscriptions, and
probably ends up profiting more on them than on paper subscriptions.

------
snewe
Working link: [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall-
street...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-us-wall-street-
journal-circulation,0,1945968.story)

------
dschobel
But how does the print revenue compare to the online revenue?

You have to wonder if the WSJ pay-wall is keeping more of their readership in
the dead-tree world vs something like the NYT.

~~~
nir
Why would WSJ care? Either way, the readers pay.

I'm not a huge fan of Murdoch, but I respect him for insisting on the simple
principle of charging money for his product, while the hyposphere keeps
twitting on how he "just doesn't get it".

------
JCThoughtscream
Being the king of the hill on a sinking ship isn't exactly impressive.

~~~
mynameishere
That was one painful mixed metaphor.

....

Response to dschobel above. Nytimes stats:

[http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs-
print-...](http://publishing2.com/2007/07/17/newspaper-online-vs-print-ad-
revenue-the-10-problem/)

    
    
        *  Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
        * Print circulation – weekday: 1,120,420
        * Print circulation – Sunday: 1,627,062
    
        * Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
        * Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000

~~~
JCThoughtscream
You're right. Shall we go with "king of a hill of quicksand?"

------
gahahaha
Sad. I used to read it when I had the chance, but now I pick up the FT out of
principle.

Worth quoting Paul Krugman: """

1) The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything.

2) If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule
#1"""

~~~
jacoblyles
It's been a few years since I read it, but the WSJ had some of the best
primary reporting of any periodical on the market, and certainly the best of
any daily.

Yes, the opinion page was bad, but I thought the purpose of a newspaper was
news.

~~~
dantheman
You mean opinions like this:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)

I sometimes agree or disagree with the opinion page, but in general I find it
thought provoking.

