Newspaper Circulation Drops Not So Bad?

For the past several years, newspapers have been reporting on their own circulation declines with a strange degree of intensity. They write prominent, mournful, self-flagellating stories of their own decline that remind me of a friend who used to sniff his own underarm when he knew it was particularly randy. Every six months, when the circulation figures are reported, a new round of articles appears. Here are the current examples, from today’s Baltimore Sun, New York Times, and Seattle Times.

Not everyone is convinced that newspapers are dying, of course. Jack Welch wants to buy the Boston Globe; Dow Jones just managed to find a buyer who paid $282 million for six smaller newspapers; and of course several months ago, McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder. Circulation declines notwithstanding, these transactions suggest an underlying value that the newspapers’ own articles do not reflect.

The media executive Allan D. Mutter makes a very interesting point on his blog about circulation declines: a lot of them are essentially intentional. That is, circulation figures are falling in part because many newspapers — in response, I am guessing, to recent audit scandals at Newsday and elsewhere — have stopped distributing free or cheap copies of their papers, which used to be helpful in padding circulation figures. Mutter explains:

To avoid reporting a vertiginous plunge in circulation all at once, most publishers have been whittling away at their non-strategic circulation for the last few years. If and when circulation stabilizes, you will know they have finished their housecleaning. The trimming is taking place in three areas:

+ Vanity circulation: Publishers increasingly are deciding to stop schlepping papers to thinly penetrated locations far from their core markets. Beyond being an expensive indulgence, vanity circulation is little prized by most advertisers. It makes perfect sense to say bye-bye to the boonies.

+ Discount circulation: Although 60% of a typical metro’s circulation consists of loyal subscribers who pay full price, a paper trying to maintain level circulation from year to year is forced to run continuous discount promotions to gain enough “readers” to make up the other 40%. As most advertisers will readily agree, it makes perfect sense for publishers to get off this high-cost, no-win treadmill.

+ Third-party circulation : A few years ago, newspapers got the idea that they could beef up their circulation by getting third parties, like hotels and car dealers, to buy discounted papers that then would then be given to “readers” for free. Given the high cost of producing – and the dubious value of advertising in – giveaway papers, it makes perfect sense for the industry to junk this junk circulation.

I am not saying that newspapers have no worries. They do: online competition, a history of overstaffing and union obstructionism, overheated Wall Street profit expectations. But if Mutter is right, and if people like Jack Welch are serious, then the papers should perhaps hold off a bit longer on writing their own obituaries.


bk

True, but as a longtime loyal subscriber to the Boston Globe, the far better of our 2 local choices despite its political slant, I've got my eye on that particular $30/month expense. How soon before I can get more customized content for almost free as part of phone/crackberry service?

I still prefer hard copy for various reasons, but still I think there may come a time....

amit

How about some data ?

"Given the high cost of producing – and the dubious value of advertising in – giveaway papers"

What's the evidence that advertising in giveaway papers is of dubious value ?

If anything I am seeing more of these circulation inflating tactics.

I know where I live it's possible to get every paper for free, either at University, at gas stations or in some stores.

Fever

Let's not forget that on-line readership is growing fast. I'm not in the newspaper business but if you include on-line readership I'd be shocked if readership isn't way up despite lower circulation. And I'd also guess that on-line readership generates more ad revenue than regular circulation.

BK:

The Boston Globe is nothing more than a voice for the liberal left and the city is becoming increasingly aware that the Globe is far from objective journalism. Accordingly, circulation is way down for the Globe.

prosa

I live in the Newsday circulation area, and it certainly seems as if the paper is trying very hard to sell discount subscriptions. They call quite frequently, toss advertising giveways (with subscription offers) on the lawn every week, and worst of all have people in the mall and at shopping centers who won't take "no" for an answer.

MusicCityMafia

Circulation is the least of the newspaper's worries. Advertisers are heading for the exits in droves. Car dealers have traditionally spent more money in the local paper than all other media combined. And that has held steady for decades.

But newspapers share of dealer's budgets (according tot the N.A.D.A) has deopped from 51% to 36% in the last two years.

I assumer that similar numbers exist for your favorites: Real Estate Agents

Gaijin51

I think that like with any "paradigm shift" that there will be winners and losers.

Whatever happens, there will still be a demand for news, so what they have to do is figure out what other ways they can provide news. I no longer buy a dead tree newspaper because I prefer the Internet.

I think The NY Times and Washington Post websites are great (although I don't pay for "Times Select" but I do think that their site has the best presentation, appearance-wise). I always try and remember to click on the ad banners once in a while to try and keep the sites free or at least much of the content free. Opening the ads in another tab on Firefox is not so disruptive. Or click and minimize.

Imsdal

I'm surprised by the comment "Given the high cost of producing – and the dubious value of advertising in – giveaway papers, it makes perfect sense for the industry to junk this junk circulation".

I live in Sweden, where Metro started as a free newspaper some ten years ago. They have now successfully launched in dozens of countries and have proved that free papers can have value that is significantly higher than "dubious".

I will be one of the last people on earth to give up my hard copy subscription to the expensive morning paper, and I was completely sure that Metro would fail miserably. But I had to admit that I was wrong several years ago. I find it incredible that there are people who care about newspapers who are still wrong about the value of free newspapers!

Are there not free papers in most big American cities already?

seamusmccauley

Allan Mutter's defence of recent circulation declines as being part of a deliberate newspaper strategy is ingenious, but it doesn't really account for the fact that the recent declines are consistent with a demographic pattern that has been ongoing for approximately 60 years - see e.g. Philip Meyer's "The Vanishing Newspaper", pp16-20.

bk

True, but as a longtime loyal subscriber to the Boston Globe, the far better of our 2 local choices despite its political slant, I've got my eye on that particular $30/month expense. How soon before I can get more customized content for almost free as part of phone/crackberry service?

I still prefer hard copy for various reasons, but still I think there may come a time....

amit

How about some data ?

"Given the high cost of producing - and the dubious value of advertising in - giveaway papers"

What's the evidence that advertising in giveaway papers is of dubious value ?

If anything I am seeing more of these circulation inflating tactics.

I know where I live it's possible to get every paper for free, either at University, at gas stations or in some stores.

Fever

Let's not forget that on-line readership is growing fast. I'm not in the newspaper business but if you include on-line readership I'd be shocked if readership isn't way up despite lower circulation. And I'd also guess that on-line readership generates more ad revenue than regular circulation.

BK:

The Boston Globe is nothing more than a voice for the liberal left and the city is becoming increasingly aware that the Globe is far from objective journalism. Accordingly, circulation is way down for the Globe.

prosa

I live in the Newsday circulation area, and it certainly seems as if the paper is trying very hard to sell discount subscriptions. They call quite frequently, toss advertising giveways (with subscription offers) on the lawn every week, and worst of all have people in the mall and at shopping centers who won't take "no" for an answer.

MusicCityMafia

Circulation is the least of the newspaper's worries. Advertisers are heading for the exits in droves. Car dealers have traditionally spent more money in the local paper than all other media combined. And that has held steady for decades.

But newspapers share of dealer's budgets (according tot the N.A.D.A) has deopped from 51% to 36% in the last two years.

I assumer that similar numbers exist for your favorites: Real Estate Agents

Gaijin51

I think that like with any "paradigm shift" that there will be winners and losers.

Whatever happens, there will still be a demand for news, so what they have to do is figure out what other ways they can provide news. I no longer buy a dead tree newspaper because I prefer the Internet.

I think The NY Times and Washington Post websites are great (although I don't pay for "Times Select" but I do think that their site has the best presentation, appearance-wise). I always try and remember to click on the ad banners once in a while to try and keep the sites free or at least much of the content free. Opening the ads in another tab on Firefox is not so disruptive. Or click and minimize.

Imsdal

I'm surprised by the comment "Given the high cost of producing - and the dubious value of advertising in - giveaway papers, it makes perfect sense for the industry to junk this junk circulation".

I live in Sweden, where Metro started as a free newspaper some ten years ago. They have now successfully launched in dozens of countries and have proved that free papers can have value that is significantly higher than "dubious".

I will be one of the last people on earth to give up my hard copy subscription to the expensive morning paper, and I was completely sure that Metro would fail miserably. But I had to admit that I was wrong several years ago. I find it incredible that there are people who care about newspapers who are still wrong about the value of free newspapers!

Are there not free papers in most big American cities already?

seamusmccauley

Allan Mutter's defence of recent circulation declines as being part of a deliberate newspaper strategy is ingenious, but it doesn't really account for the fact that the recent declines are consistent with a demographic pattern that has been ongoing for approximately 60 years - see e.g. Philip Meyer's "The Vanishing Newspaper", pp16-20.