The value in price

With all the problems print is having nowadays, a common recommendation has been to give things away for free. Then, the circulation rises, and then advertisers will pay more to get face time on the pages.

But one key point many people are forgetting, and that some publications have started to warm up to, is that people value good value. Sure, they'd love to get their magazines for free, but they know that if they at least pay 20 bucks, they're going to get a real magazine, not a shopping catalogue that's trying to hook them.

Newsweek recently redid its entire approach to get out of the weekly-update news grind and into the more thoughtful, in-depth realm, which is where magazines have to head to survive. They can't be the leaders in breaking news; they come out once a week. Instead, they have to give the best analysis and in-depth articles that people won't look for on the Web.

As a result, the type of people who are reading this kind of Newsweek are not the faint of heart. They have to be pretty educated, and they're probably making a little money or are involved in a field of spreading knowledge. So, Newsweek is charging more for its magazine.

Sound crazy? It's not. If someone wants free information, they'll go to the Web. If they want Newsweek's awesome columnists and on-site reporting from all around the world, they'll pay $50 dollars more.

And here's where it really starts to make sense: When companies looking to place advertising know that your readers are well-educated and willing to pay a little more to get this package of solid information every week (meaning they'll really sit down and read it), those companies will be willing to place ads, and pay more for them.

If they advertise in the Metro, they're hoping that out of every 10 copies, at least one person is reading (while the rest are using the free sheet to pick up dog dung, wrap fish or create an adolescent "snowball" war). With Newsweek, advertisers know that each copy is being read.

The New Yorker has stuck to this idea, charging a little above normal for subscriptions because, hey, it's the New Yorker.

Yet Vanity Fair and Esquire just started poaching issues at the rate of a dozen for eight bucks. If I were an advertiser, I'd do my best Weekend Update impression of "Really?!?!" and run the other way. That's an obvious marketing ploy to boost subscriptions; but when people pay $8 for a year's worth, they're not going to mind if several issues lay next to the bed, completely unread. Wasted advertising.

Free is good in many situations, and it can boost readership. Better yet, it can be a gateway to pull readers in who may have never tried your publication.

But when people assign value to what they're reading, they will be more loyal and appreciate the product more. (They'll also hold it to a higher standard.)

And when you get down to it, $60 a year for Newsweek really isn't that much, unless you're a student, and then life just stinks altogether.

P.S. I'm not sure how I feel about the new design package in Newsweek. I'm having issues, no pun intended.

P.S.S. Slate has a somewhat related article about Wired magazine and free products.