In a letter posted to Romenesko (no comments allowed, otherwise I’d just post this there), Matt Baldwin of MediaNews Group wonders why there’s so much focus on reporting declining reporting newspaper circulation instead of celebrating the much more robust overall audience, including online, which has been exploding with growth in recent years.
He’s right, to a point. We do tend to dwell on the audited newspaper circulation numbers when they are reported twice yearly. But we do it largely because those are numbers that can directly affect a news organization’s ability to grow revenue. If circulation is up, newspapers traditionally have been able to charge more for ads. If it’s down, as it has been consistently in recent years, it adds to the revenue crisis by devaluing the printed product.
I’m a cheerleader for interactive, probably to a fault. After 12 years building the business, that’s my bias. But as much as online growth matters, print circulation matters just as much at the moment. Yes, digital audience is growing and digital revenues will carry news organizations forward, but due to the competitive environment online, there’s currently not nearly enough online income to make up for the shortfall on the print side.
So circ. matters, and I think it’s right to pay attention to the numbers.
But I’m puzzled by this piece of Baldwin’s argument:
Judging a newspaper by the number of copies in the market makes no more sense than counting the number of television sets to evaluate a TV station. To paraphrase a recent United States President, “It’s the audience, stupid!”
Counting distributed copies strikes me as the best – if not only – way to judge the effectiveness of the printed paper in reaching an audience. It’s not at all like counting TV sets; that analog would be counting newsstands or newspaper trucks. Counting circulation counts consumption of the print product. Whether a paper is paid or free, it’s essentially valueless until someone picks it up and reads it.
Newspaper companies have finally been reaching new people in new ways in the past decade, people who are establishing habits that may not include the printed newspaper at all. Interactive continues to be a substantial success and a growth engine in most markets. I get as frustrated as Matt Baldwin does that the stories about circulation declines – often written by print newsrooms – neglect to mention the enormous upside opportunities. But it’s far too soon to ignore print circulation – and its associated revenue – unless we’re ready to make the leap to an all-digital future.
And that’s a post for another day.
Suffering Circulator says
October 31, 2008 at 10:15 amI applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.
Suffering Circulator says
October 31, 2008 at 11:15 amI applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.
Suffering Circulator says
October 31, 2008 at 4:15 pmI applaud Baldwin and Windsor for finally bringing light to this subject. For years we have seen losses in paid circulation copies for several reasons; The advent of 3rd party allowed previous subscribers to get their paper cheaper or free so they stopped subscribing, the addition of the electronic version allowed for people to log on read the news they wanted for free so they stopped subscribing, another reason was the quality of the product. Face it with regular price increases to offset revenue losses from the above reasons we never question whether the product the newsroom puts out is the one our market wants. Not just readers but prospective readers. We talk about spending money for aquiring subscribers being expensive but what does it say when people are willing to subscribe at 50% but not 100% of the regular rate? It says they do not think our product is worth what we are charging. Don't expect to read this on E&P though. For all their talk of covering the newspaper industry an analysis of their articles show they are only interested in the newsroom. Even then it is very protective and would never go so far as to say It's the product stupid. Compare this to say cars. It is like trying to sell Cobalts for the same price as a Cadilac and blaming the sales force when sales plummet. Recent newsroom cuts not withstanding Editorial has been given a free pass for decades on what they put out and circulation losses were blamed on circulation. You can redesign all you want and that is not going to amount to a hill of beans. The reader wants clear unbiased and reasoned news stories. They do not want the writer to decide for them as they did in the past, yet the newsroom still thinks they are the controllers of the news. Well not with Radio, TV, and the internet. Now the reader can get his coverage elsewhere and when he/she sees that all the facts in his/her local paper do not add up the paper loses credibility and readers. It's time for newsrooms to realize they are not the news makers they are the news reporters. Hanging out with the Sports heros and doers of great deeds is indeed heavy stuff. And possibly hanging out with these individuals has given some reporters a feeling that they are of the same breed and deserving of the same fame but they are not.