A reader emails that the Modesto Bee has raised its newsstand price to 75 cents a copy. I looked for a news report to link to but came up empty. Can anybody else confirm?
Seems steep -- but it's still cheaper than a single copy of the Star-Telegram, which just jumped to $1.
In comments, readers confirm the price increase, and say there was no announcement from the Mod Bee. "It just happened!"
.
.
.
9 comments:
Confirmed. I am an employee. Sunday price will hike up, too
You can buy a share of our company cheaper than you can buy a copy of any of our papers.
If it was .50 cents before, and .75cents now, do you now get 50% more of a quality MNI paper?
i was told by an employee that this is correct AND readers were told nothing before it happened. it just happened!
One day it was just Bamm! there on the front page. Smaller paper bigger price. Yeah that sounds about right for mcClatchy papers.
Typical "repackaging" in many retail areas...Cup of yogurt 2 oz. smaller-20 cents more; Ice cream used to be 1/2 gallon for $4.00-now it's smaller and costs more...McClatchy is just following the trend...OR perhaps they are trying to shrink readership and justify going totally online!
The "employee" knows squat, the Sunday price is not going up. The paper has been under priced for years. Is your journalism worth nothing? The single copy price hasn't changed in 15 years, what else lasts that long? Why would they make a big announcement, does Target tell you toothpaste is going up next week so you can get mad about it? Just like a like a "journalist" to want to self destruct their own paycheck.
Anon 6:33 (a) Thanks for the Econ 101 lesson for all to see.
Anon 6:33(b) Your delusional, and UNDERSPRICED argument is laughable, as is your phony and pathetic pseudo limonene elitist ego.
Assuming you were under priced, then you’re a total IDIOT for screwing your shareholders over the many years and should be fired.
Further, even if you are criminally correct, then your years of consistent under pricing now leaves much LESS for exiting employees, which by your Marxism has collaterally now crippled.
To further your edification, as with 6:33 (a)’s perfect example, when repackaging occurs, people are free to choose to buy or not buy your product, which with yours, they have already abandoned yours never to return.
Great work, LOSER
The command of the English language is wonderful. Too bad you have zero common sense or even a clue about marketing. If you understood the slightest concept of where the revenue comes from, you would know that advertising revenue and circulation volume was the model for profit for the past 75 years, not circulation revenue. I have done an excellent job in achieving profits the past 33 years. With declining advertising revenue, for all media including the internet, caused by the republican depression, advertising can no longer fully support the cost to produce the product nor pay the wages of the elite in the newsroom.
Post a Comment