The publisher has stated that the decrease of Mercury's subscription over Bugle is primarily due to the price difference. Moreover, The mercury newspaper has seen a decline of 10,000 subscriptions over the last five years. The publisher has also stated that, decreasing Mercury's price lower than Bugle would increase sales which helps in more advertising space and revenue. I find the reasoning provided by the publisher flawed and i explain the reasons in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, the article assumed that the decline is primarily due to the lower price offered by the Bugle than Mercury News. I find this reason quite flawed because, Bulge news paper could be publishing completely different news content than mercury and targeting different sections of the user groups. Moreover Bugle could be publishing less number of pages compared to mercury which has more pages which increase the production cost. It is also not stated if price was the only differentiating factor between the two news papers. This assumption is wrong.

Secondly, the article has not provided any data on the user subscriptions between the two news papers. If the subscriptions of Mercury news is in millions compared to Bugle which is if lower than Mercury than 10,000 subscriptions may not be a huge decline. However mercury news has to analyze on the decline. This could be due to a new editorial started by Bugle Or a new sports editions or some other factors.

Thirdly, there is no evidence of any increase in businesses spending more money on advertising. Had the publisher provide any evidence through research statistics or some sort reducing the price for mercury news may be a hasty decision.

Finally, had the article provided more information on type of readers between the two news papers, any external factors influencing the decline of Mercury news or another data, mercury news should not reduce the price. Therefore, the announcement issued by the publisher is seriously flawed.