I want to save paper (and the planet). I also want to support WW. Which is better for the bottom line: my reading the paper online with its lower publishing costs, or reading it on paper, which brings higher advertising rates? —J
When you say "save paper," do you mean you just want to conserve paper, the resource? Or that you want to "save paper" in a larger, cultural sense, preserving newsprint as a viable medium for the delivery of news and opinion?
Whoa, that's heavy. Maybe I shouldn't have huffed so much Wite-Out.
Anyway, this question leaves me in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, tracking down the obvious source, WW Editor Mark Zusman, shouldn't be too difficult. On the other, I always hesitate to remind him that I still work here.
Ah, screw it; let's just ask him. "My dream Portlander is one who rushes out to get the paper on Wednesday morning, digests it from cover to cover, and spends all of her discretionary income with our worthy advertisers. She also checks wweek.com on an hourly basis to see the news that we are breaking, and is sure to patronize the advertisers on our website."
There's more: "She plans her life around our events (MusicfestNW, Eat Mobile, Candidates Gone Wild), gives generously to our annual fundraiser for local nonprofits, votes in accordance with our editorial endorsements, and considers Finder (our annual city guide) her Bible."
There you have it. If you have time, feel free to eat and/or sleep.
To put the final gloss on the delicate financials: at present, revenues from the paper product cover operations costs well beyond our printing expenses. It's a good thing, too—you'd be surprised how much we spent every month just on Wite-Out.