The challenge is selecting your target demographics. The Economist is a fairly targeted product. National Geographic the same. A daily newspaper isn’t. Its trying to be something for everybody, and it fails.

In Denmark they actually did what you suggested at a Copenhagen based daily called Politiken. They put all their fast paced news online and perspective, analysis and the lot in the print paper. Result? Readers didn’t get it. Readers didn’t read the paper more, because all the long articles took more time – time which readers didn’t have or weren’t willing to spend on the product.

Now Politiken has reintroduced news to the print edition albeit in smaller numbers than before. The print publication still suffers.

All in all I think this might work on a niche basis, but not if you as a newspaper is trying to cover all bases.

I think a lot of the reverse-publishing mindset is tied to demographics. Everyone wants younger readers but are all too keenly aware that fogies make up a huge share of the print readership.

So I think there’s a sense of providing two versions of the same product to two different audiences.

Since newspapers are hardly great innovators we may need to wait out a demographic change to reach the point of true diversity of print and Web publications. The day when every 60 year old grew up with the Internet is a good 25-30 years away.

I love the idea of a world where lots of people want to read an Economisty publication. I’d love to work in that world. I have little confidence that world exists.

see you on the Newswonks field.

Great photography would probably help sell these editions you propose
just as it does for the National Geographic.

Photos printed big that can be cut out and framed or hung on the wall.
Maybe even package these editions with mini poster prints.

It would help to justify charging more for these magazine editions.

“Photos sell papers.”