India and Pakistan are overall poor but there’s also a vast upper and middle class with wealth and those are the people buying subscriptions to the economist. They have equivalent wealth to, for example, Bay Area tech industry managers but have much better lives than in the USA with private drivers, live-in chefs, live-in child care… these are my friends and I know that they can pay more than me for a subscription to the economist.
rendaw · 2h ago
How do those places do with regard to air quality, public health, sanitation, medical quality, etc?
Marsymars · 5h ago
> India and Pakistan are overall poor but there’s also a vast upper and middle class with wealth
I mean... kinda? Switzerland has 9 million total people, and more millionaires than India and Pakistan combined.
But anyway this post is saying that Indians have the cheapest subscriptions, not taking purchasing power into account.
jonahhorowitz · 6h ago
This post in current affairs[0] remains the best piece of writing about the Economist that I've ever read.
The best piece of writing about the Economist you've ever read is a piece by an author who admits that "until last week, I had not read The Economist since high school"? This is the author whose opinion on the Economist you trust?
Waterluvian · 5h ago
I haven’t read the piece, but if someone makes a well-reasoned argument, it doesn’t matter who they are or what credentials they hold.
It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
margalabargala · 3h ago
I see your point but the author is freely admitting their ignorance about the whole thing.
Imagine if someone says "I spent the last week reading about the history of the Levant and I know how to implement peace in that region".
tekla · 1h ago
The argument is not well reasoned. Thats the point
sien · 3h ago
The author has discovered that The Economist is pro-market.
As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset.
Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
The best take on The Economist magazine that I saw (after subscribing for several years) is that it's News of the World for policy wonks. To be read for laughs. For maximum effect, leave your paper copy aside for six months, then read it.
slyall · 7h ago
Many years ago the Economist charged just $50/year everywhere for the Digital edition. They gradually increased it though.
Then at one point changed it to a reflect the local price of the print edition in your country. I live in NZ so price was relatively high. To reduce my costs I changed my address to the US (my employer at the time).
Here is a post I did 10 years ago on their pricing:
Companies have different pricing in different markets... based on the differing consumer behaviors and maximizing volume/price dynamics. This is business 101
bdangubic · 7h ago
since you seemed to be business 101 guru make some sense out of this for us (if you read it…)
odo1242 · 4h ago
The game developer Pirate Software had a video on this. He mentioned that the demo for his game, Heartbound, was really popular in Brazil, but due to Brazilians not having high purchasing power, the final version was too expensive for Brazilians to buy. So he lowered the price of the game in Brazil and added Portuguese translations to the game, and the game now makes 25% of revenue from Brazilian players (also it increased the total amount of revenue and reduced piracy, I think)
The general idea is based on charging people based on how much they can pay. There are reasonable ways to execute this (I’d argue localized pricing is among them, along with things like open source software and donations, and financial aid at colleges) and unreasonable ways (like Kroger’s bid to use facial recognition to do it in their stores)
lotsofpulp · 3h ago
Price discrimination is a subject covered in introductory level microeconomics courses:
Bottom line is collect more money from those able and willing to pay you more, and collect less from those less able and willing to pay you, as long as it is above the cost of goods sold.
At some national parks or attractions in poorer countries, they will ask to see your passport and collect more money if you are from a richer country.
suraci · 2h ago
I like The Economist; The Economist is more honest than other media
I mean... kinda? Switzerland has 9 million total people, and more millionaires than India and Pakistan combined.
But anyway this post is saying that Indians have the cheapest subscriptions, not taking purchasing power into account.
[0] - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/05/how-the-economis...
It’s equally as meek a counter-argument as, “trust me because I hold degrees in this topic.” Good. Then it should be easy for you to make a well-reasoned argument.
Imagine if someone says "I spent the last week reading about the history of the Levant and I know how to implement peace in that region".
As someone who is a Yale educated leftist and believes that markets do not work Robinson is upset.
Meanwhile, when employers of his own magazine wanted it to become a worker owned socialist cooperative he got them to resign. Socialism for thee, not for me.
No comments yet
Then at one point changed it to a reflect the local price of the print edition in your country. I live in NZ so price was relatively high. To reduce my costs I changed my address to the US (my employer at the time).
Here is a post I did 10 years ago on their pricing:
https://blog.darkmere.gen.nz/2015/03/parallel-importing-vs-t...
The general idea is based on charging people based on how much they can pay. There are reasonable ways to execute this (I’d argue localized pricing is among them, along with things like open source software and donations, and financial aid at colleges) and unreasonable ways (like Kroger’s bid to use facial recognition to do it in their stores)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
Bottom line is collect more money from those able and willing to pay you more, and collect less from those less able and willing to pay you, as long as it is above the cost of goods sold.
At some national parks or attractions in poorer countries, they will ask to see your passport and collect more money if you are from a richer country.