Although the magazine business in general depends on Walmart for 20% of their sales, I think it is likely that the large magazines that were cut (like The New Yorker, The Economist, Fortune, Forbes, and Businessweek) did not resonate with the Walmart audience.

I don't know how many Walmarts are in Silicon Valley. But, as far as I know, there are none in the city limits of Chicago and New York. In general, wealthy people don't shop at Walmart.

How many people do you think buy jeans at Walmart and in the next breath ask where they can find The Economist? Has Mark Anderson even been to Walmart?

I think these magazines will survive for now.

I don't think the divide is as big as you think-- lots and lots of upper-middle class people shop at Walmart because of its convenience. They probably don't buy jeans there because those are status items, but they do buy things like electronics, movies, books, magazines, food, etc.

The business magazines are probably the lowest sellers, but for Walmart that means millions upon millions of purchases. It's still an enormous blow to those magazines. But probably not enough to put them out of business, of course.

You and I know different upper middle class people. If you walk into a Walmart, that definitely is not the apparent demographic.

The middle class and up seems to prefer Target.

I would agree with dcurtis, Walmart is not exclusively lower class. It's not the lower class buying things like this: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7756623

Lots of savvy higher-income shoppers know that paying $2 extra to buy a DVD or $5 extra to buy a video game somewhere else doesn't mean you got a better product. For commodities like packaged foods, batteries, household products, electronics, toys, etc that are the same no matter where you buy them, Wal-Mart is 10-20% cheaper than even Target. The reason more upper income people don't like Wal-Mart is either a) politics or b) many of the older stores are crowded and dirty and it's worth paying a little extra to have a more pleasant experience. I'm one of the second type, but there's a brand new Wal-Mart near my house that's the nicest big-box store I've ever shopped in, and since there's no "crowded and dirty tax" for me to pay, I do most of my shopping there and save some decent money each month.

I agree with you entirely. a is a small factor, b is a huge one, and c (image) is another. Many people don't want to be seen in a WalMart. It's silly, I admit, but it's most definitely true, and the way Target has taken advantage of those is perhaps the greatest untold story in the history of capitalism.

Yes it is. Drive by any trailer park, each one of them has a DirecTV dish on top. This is the good old U.S.A., where not having money doesn't equal not spending money. And entertainment expenses are second only to food.

Actually it generally goes 1) housing 2) transportation 3) food, and pretty much everything else is single digit percentages of income. Also, DirecTV doesn't mean you have a nice TV - it probably means that cable isn't in the area or that spending $50 extra a month on satellite is a good investment if you watch a lot of TV as opposed to going out.

Your list is in terms of overall expense, but people will splurge more on entertainment than the rest. There are plenty of poor people with 42" LCD TVs.

Sadly, that's what the lower echelon uses credit cards for.

Yep. They can't for housing and transportation, and food is paid for by uncle sam. But televisions are all Visa.

Have you ever been to Florida?

Or Costco.

>But, as far as I know, there are none in the city limits of Chicago and New York.

This isn't because wealthy people don't want to shop there. In both NY and Chicago, unions and their lackeys on the city council didn't allow walmart into the city.

My general impression: in the NY suburbs (where walmart does exist), people will do weekly shopping at whatever store is closest/most convenient. The "shopping for fun" that many wealthier women do is a target only activity, however.

I would pay for an Ad free version of Wired. Keeping my outlook unsoiled by ads is more important than reading their articles.

This move is a bit premature though, as electronic formats don't have the ummph of paper. That is distinctly unlike music.

I actually enjoy looking at the ads in Wired because they are usually highly relevant.

I think this will be pretty damaging. The average cost of a magazine goes up if sales go down. A 20% cut of retail sales could lead to greater losses down the road, and if other stores follow suit, magazines start dying out really fast.

The might go the way of the buggy whip; I could see them being obsolete if screen resolutions improve. I wonder how they'll try to resist the change. They'll probably say computers are a nerdy format, it's nicer to read on paper, and it's got better content. I hope they don't start trying to get protection laws passed. It may be tempting for them, given that magazines have a lot of reach. It would be unpleasant to see them try to get protected, and disappointing if they succeed at everyone else's expense.

Magazines-- there's a business looking for a reboot. (That said, my wife works at a major magazine, so not too soon, please!)