« I’m Back! | Main | Blog of the Week - No. 5 »
A Smaller Wall Street Journal on the Way
By JLP | October 21, 2005
I hate this idea. The Wall Street Journal is going to change the width of the paper from 15 inches to 12 inches. Personally, I like the paper just the way it is. They are apparently making the change so that they can contract out some of their printing needs and thereby save $18 million a year. Hmmm… I wonder if they will reduce their subscription cost? Right now I pay $215 per year for the print edition. I could save money by simply subscribing to the online edition (which includes Barron’s) but I like paper.
So, if there’s anyone from the Wall Street Journal reading this: please leave the paper alone!
Topics: Miscellaneous |
October 21st, 2005 at 9:42 pm
A few years ago they shrank the SF Chronicle and I love it! It’s easier to read on the train or spread out on my desk. I think you will get to enjoy the smaller size. I subscribe to the online version of the WSJ and rarely see the printed version. When I do, it seems huge. By the way, don’t bank on a lower price.
Welcome back!
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:56 am
We get the WSJ in our office, and of course it includes access to the website. I prefer to read it on the Internet rather than the paper version, but sometimes read the paper version while having lunch. A smaller paper version would fit onto the table better with my lunch, so it sounds good to me.
October 23rd, 2005 at 5:02 am
I go all electronic. The additional cost of the online version once you have the dead tree sub is ridiculous. Also, you can get the online version anywhere, anytime, plus 90 days of free archive access (increased from 30) and Barron’s online to boot. (Reading this week’s issue of Barron’s in another tab right now.) I say the online version goes further and is tree friendlier.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:49 am
[...] Sigh. I didn’t even get to try the smaller version that JLP from All Things Financial mentioned. (Actually I prefer it large, otherwise I might as well read a magazine!) [...]