Less than 200,000 subscriptions for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

They are saying their circulation dropped over 10% in the last six months. The real number is 190,841.

If I had my way, we’d be off their list, but the spouse loves his morning paper ritual.

I subscribe to their newsfeed. I can’t tell you the number of times in recent weeks where they’ve been feeding blogger news. They won’t touch local bloggers yet, but I bet it’s coming. They’ve trashed so many reporters there’s no one left to do the news.


  1. Fewer, Cindy. Not less.

  2. “circulation of the daily paper dropping below 200,000 for the first time.”

    I took that as less than 200,000 subscribers, but I’m willing to be wrong. Help me to see what you are seeing.

  3. Oh, your ragging about the word choice. Ok, fewer than 200,000 subscribers. You win.

    No – wait a minute. I think I gave into you to easily…

  4. BrkfldDad says:

    I think you should use less fewer times more often! 🙂

    Yikes! Think about it. JS is probably now grossing less than $75MM on circulation alone. Wow, what a precipitous fall.

  5. It is kind of sad to consider how fast that happened. Do you think they’ll recover?

    “Less” worked in my mind because of all those “less than” and “greater than” math problems. It was a number!

  6. Wilson828 says:

    The MJS is not a legitimate news source. We stopped getting their paper years ago…. there’s nothing in it. And the quality of news reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Before hopping on flights I pick up USA Today – never ever ever MJS – never did.

    One of the big grips I have about the MJS is that they publish different versions of the paper for different areas of the city. We are a metro area and I’m interested in what happens in Waukesha, Brown Deer, and Cudahy. I want to know. But the MJS has segregated us and thus forced us to get our metro news from other sources, such as TV and online sources. Even if they read this posting, they still wouldn’t get it. And that’s what it’s all about – the MJS doesn’t get it.

  7. Who needs a physical paper now that you can get your latest news for absolutely free by simply visiting your computer?

  8. Anthony is right, besides free, more up-to-date and convenient. Also 50% of the political spectrum has been delegitimized by them and has been told, by their actions, that they are not worthy to have content in the paper.

  9. I bet we see a pay to view model soon. Lots of others are stepping up that idea.

  10. The Lorax says:

    The WSJ tried that and it failed epically.

  11. I don’t remember it. But then, I don’t always pay attention to stuff like that. I know they restricted the archives once – still do?

  12. The Lorax says:

    Most consensus i have seen is that pay-per-content is a failed business model and isn’t profitable. Which is fine because I prefer the Huffington Post. I got mucho news from many services.