Submission statement: /r/neoliberal members are probably more likely to read *The Economist* than any other demographic in the world (possibly excepting the British upper class?)
They’re both small compared to the *New York Times*, which has gone from about 4 million subscribers in 2018 to about 12.7 million today. The *WSJ* has nearly doubled its subscribers, but the *Economist* has remained basically flat, going from 1.1 million to 1.25 or so over seven years. But maybe they don’t mind! They famously aim for an narrow, elite, wealthy audience and still make a profit every year. In the 90s their slogan was “*The Economist*: not read by millions each year.”
PiccoloSN4 on
As a member of the liberal elite, hell yeah (I wait for archive links on Economist posts)
Gdude910 on
I used to subscribe to the economist but they’re an anti-trans publication so I stopped
Underoverthrow on
Financial Times is better than either of them.
Lagarde is great but if I could have an FT flair I’d switch in an instant.
cjt09 on
The great thing about The Economist is their decidedly international focus. Every week they feature some obscure election in Pakistan or currency change in Botswana.
The bad thing about The Economist is their decidedly international focus. It’s interesting but unless you’re a finance professional there’s not going to be a lot of actionable content.
6 Comments
Submission statement: /r/neoliberal members are probably more likely to read *The Economist* than any other demographic in the world (possibly excepting the British upper class?)
Data sources:
[Annual Reports for the Economist from ‘The Economist Group’](https://www.economistgroup.com/results)
Statista – [Number of print and digital subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal from 2018 to 2024](https://www.statista.com/statistics/193788/average-paid-circulation-of-the-wall-street-journal/)
Tools used: Google Sheets
They’re both small compared to the *New York Times*, which has gone from about 4 million subscribers in 2018 to about 12.7 million today. The *WSJ* has nearly doubled its subscribers, but the *Economist* has remained basically flat, going from 1.1 million to 1.25 or so over seven years. But maybe they don’t mind! They famously aim for an narrow, elite, wealthy audience and still make a profit every year. In the 90s their slogan was “*The Economist*: not read by millions each year.”
As a member of the liberal elite, hell yeah (I wait for archive links on Economist posts)
I used to subscribe to the economist but they’re an anti-trans publication so I stopped
Financial Times is better than either of them.
Lagarde is great but if I could have an FT flair I’d switch in an instant.
The great thing about The Economist is their decidedly international focus. Every week they feature some obscure election in Pakistan or currency change in Botswana.
The bad thing about The Economist is their decidedly international focus. It’s interesting but unless you’re a finance professional there’s not going to be a lot of actionable content.