It’s with much mirth that I read the story in today’s
Marketing that
The Economist’s sales have risen on the back of the credit crunch. Apparently readers are flocking to the magazine because of its unrivaled insight into business issues and therefore perspective on the current situation. So what’s funny about that? Well nothing… except that according to
Jacqui Kean, brand marketing director at the Economist (when I interviewed her last year)
The Economist is “not a B2B brand.”
Business issues, she claimed, are only “part of our content, but so is politics, current affairs, and we also write about science, technology and the arts.”
So it’s just a coincidence that
The Economist is doing well just as the economy goes to the wall? Hardly. Pull the other one Jacqui, it’s got bells on.
I have no problem with
The Economist attempting to broaden its remit and content and appeal to a broader audience, but
I am concerned that it appears to be deluding itself about its role, audience and remit. Whether it likes it or not, it is known first and foremost for its excellent coverage of economic and business-related issues. Whether it can shift this perception over time remains open to question, but it seems unlikely.
Just because people are flocking to read The Economist because of heighten interest in the economy doesn't make it a B2B brand.
The Economist does well because of its intelligent insight and commentary and is accessible to every audience on every newsstand - the increase in sales now just prove the brand is a trustworthy and an excellent source of un-bias information - its an institution – who would you trust?