I know many of you are interested in how Wikipedia's traditional competitors are doing, especially the unusual event that new print editions appear.
The Swedish encyclopedia, Nationalencyklopedin, was produced in 20 volumes in 1989-1996 and has since made many transformations as CDROM, DVD, and online. The original 20 volumes contained 172,000 articles, which have expanded to 460,000 in the current online edition, which is only open to paying subscribers.
One year ago, a new printed edition appeared, a compact 3 volumes with only 64,000 short articles. These volumes have the same 3 columns per page, 25 cm tall, as the original 20 set. At the same time, the website was revised so that 64,000 short articles (I assume they are the same ones) were made available for free.
Yesterday, we learned of yet another printed edition, this time in 20 volumes, to be sold in collaboration with two newspapers Dagens Nyheter and Expressen. It appears that these volumes are rather thin, maybe 200 pages and set in only 2 columns. Although I don't have any numbers, it seems that this could be the same 64,000 short articles.
The old print set of 20 big volumes + 3 supplements sells for 700 euro in plain binding or 1100 euro for leather spines (half-calf, Halblederband). The 3 volumes sell for 190 euro. The new 20 volume compact edition sells for 8 euro/volume (including shipping) with the first one free, for a total of 150 euro.
The two newspapers belong to the same publisher. Dagens Nyheter is Sweden's largest morning subscription newspaper, delivering the volumes with 14 day intervals directly to your home. Expressen is Sweden's second largest evening newspaper, only sold in stores, and you get the volume for an extra 8 euro when you buy your newspaper. Expressen has earlier done this with DVD films and some minor books, and so has its competitor Aftonbladet. Some stores might offer a reduced price for the newspaper supplement to customers who buy other products for more than a certain amount.
My interpretation is that printed encyclopedias and newspapers are two industries in crisis that are trying to find each other. Using a highly respected brand for a much smaller new product is a strategy that has been tried before (e.g. Mercedes-Benz A-Class), but I'm not convinced it makes any sense in the long run. People might set their expectations too high and get disappointed. Old arguments that the Swedish Wikipedia needs to become as good as Nationalencyklopedin, suddenly got a lot more confused.