Posted on 04/07/2007 9:58:20 AM PDT by Milhous
NEW YORK NYTimes.com kept its strong lead in February as the top newspaper Web site, besting competitors across the country in unique audience, page views, and time spent per person on the site, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. Rounding out the top five in uniques were USATODAY.com, washingtonpost.com, LATimes.com, and WSJ.com.
The New York Times site (which has some articles behind the TimesSelect pay wall) attracted a unique audience of 12,960,000 users in February, who combined for 455,527,000 page views. USATODAY.com came in second with 9,050,000 unique visitors and 169,517,000 page views; the Washington Post's site had 8,030,000 readers and 154,836,000 views. LATimes.com had 4,546,000 unique readers with 50,986,000 page views; and the Wall Street Journal's site (which has many articles available by subscription only) rounded out the top five with 3,436,000 uniques generating 42,067,000 hits.
Several other papers' sites were also up there in terms of total page views. The Houston Chronicle's site logged a total of 93,737,000 views in February; Boston.com had 57,154,000 page views; AJC.com, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's site had 54,994,000 page views; SFGate.com had 51,617,000 page views; and the Chicago Tribune's site had 45,283,000 page views.
The Web site of the New York Times also had the highest number of average minutes of the course of the month per user, with 37:09. In this category, AJC.com came in second with users spending 31:29 minutes with the site over the course of the month. Rounding out the top five in this category were the Minneapolis Star Tribune's site, which readers visited for an average of 23:32 minutes; USAToday.com at 22:08; and the Boston.com at 20:56.
The full list of Nielsen//NetRatings newspaper site Top 30 statistics from February is below.
***
Brand or Channel, Unique Audience (000), Web Page Views (000), Time per Person (hh:mm:ss)
NYTimes.com: 12,960 -- 455,527 -- 0:37:09
USATODAY.com: 9,050 -- 169,517 -- 0:22:08
washingtonpost.com: 8,030 -- 154,836 -- 0:20:28
LA Times: 4,546 -- 50,986 -- 0:12:08
Wall Street Journal Online: 3,436 -- 42,067 -- 0:15:50
The Houston Chronicle: 3,292 -- 93,737 -- 0:20:44
SFGate.com: 3,236 -- 51,617 -- 0:14:56
Boston.com: 3,197 -- 57,154 -- 0:20:56
Chicago Tribune: 2,973 -- 45,283 -- 0:13:44
New York Post: 2,684 -- 31,335 -- 0:09:01
Daily News Online Edition: 2,555 -- 9,754 -- 0:05:04
Chicago Sun-Times: 2,142 -- 14,804 -- 0:08:13
Orlando Sentinel: 2,049 -- 16,914 -- 0:06:21
Newsday: 2,047 -- 20,336 -- 0:05:13
MercuryNews.com: 1,950 -- 9,577 -- 0:04:42
Azcentral.com: 1,858 -- 19,587 -- 0:08:48
The Seattle Times: 1,810 -- 18,649 -- 0:09:19
The San Diego Union-Tribune: 1,699 -- 8,869 -- 0:04:58
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: 1,698 -- 13,006 -- 0:06:48
International Herald Tribune: 1,685 -- 3,201 -- 0:02:23
MiamiHerald.com: 1,644 -- 16,476 -- 0:11:54
Sun-Sentinel: 1,630 -- 23,437 -- 0:10:52
The Washington Times: 1,607 -- 6,224 -- 0:04:15
Ottaway Newspapers: 1,557 -- 12,862 -- 0:06:00
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 1,429 -- 54,994 -- 0:31:29
Star Tribune: 1,385 -- 24,944 -- 0:23:32
Village Voice Media: 1,377 -- 5,205 -- 0:04:07
DallasNews.com: 1,358 -- 17,174 -- 0:08:10
The Detroit News: 1,273 -- 16,839 -- 0:12:34
Philly.com: 1,243 -- 21,785 -- 0:17:32
NYTimes.com: 12,960 -- 455,527 -- 0:37:09
Drudge Report: N/A -- 416,503 -- N/A
USATODAY.com: 9,050 -- 169,517 -- 0:22:08
...
news.yahoo.com news.google.com craigslist.com nytimes.com news.altavista.com
ping
I haven’t looked in a while, but the Houston paper used to have good online comics. That might explain its rankings.
Actually, without Drudge, FR, and similar sites, I doubt whether the NY Times would get nearly as many hits.
I go to the Times several times a day, ordinarily, to follow up on articles which I first see referred to elsewhere. Needless to say, that doesn’t mean I approve of those articles.
It has been many years since I went directly to the Times to read whatever they had posted, and I didn’t do it often then. And it’s been many more years since I subscribed to the Times in my mailbox.
Perhaps I should add that I have an excellent ad filter, AdMuncher, so I never see ads on any of these sites. I warmly recommend it for nearly complete freedom from banner ads as well as popups. I don’t think I’m the kind of visitor they like.
Then there are the cash paying subscribers. If this chart was updated, I'm sure the weekday morning line would show a different trend.
Most editorial and circulation departments know the root cause of the declining figures but will not correct the problem. Deathwatch isn't the right term. Its more like suicide watch.
Well done graphic Milhous, puts the NYT online in a whole different light. As well as the other papers.
There just isn’t an income stream if you aren’t a gateway.
Since the NYT published Homeland security’s perfectly legal monitoring of financial transactions, I’ve refused to go to their site. I’ll read the partial articles here, but they’re dead to me.
Granted, given a chance, they’re far from the only paper in the country that will work to undermine our country, but they’re guilty as charged.
I wish people would stop using the very overused “Dinosaur Media Death Watch”, not only is it incorrect just due to the fact that the total numbers blows conservative media away by far.
Evidently, NY Times patrons are slow readers!
Thanks for posting that.
Milhous, it won’t be “old” until we find out Osama is dead, lol!!
Yes, it is an oldie.
Bob Garfield's Chaos Scenario 2.0Along with Jarvis' take:
...
For instance, listen carefully to Jan Leth, executive creative director of OgilvyInteractive North America, as he tells a funny little story about an agency assignment for Six Flags.
"They had a promotion for their 45th anniversary. They wanted to give away 45,000 tickets for opening day to drive traffic. So we got a brief to do whatever: ads, microsite, whatever. But our interactive creative director just went off and posted it on Craigslist. Five hours later, 45,000 tickets were spoken for.
"No photo shoot. No after-shoot drinks at Shutters," he adds, with faux regret. Then, with somewhat less irony: "Now, the trick is, how do you get paid?"
...
Chaos 2.0ROTFLMAO BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
...
This is fundamental and important. In media, we have long argued that a new medium does not replace the old one and that ad spending may shift around in new mixes but do not decrease. No more. Now marketers and customers can have their transactions and conversations directly. That is to say, we the customers can get the information we want about products straight from sellers and the more that happens, the less those sellers need to waste money on giving us messages we did not ask for and do not want (aka, advertising). The more that happens, the less money they will spend on ads. Total ad spending will, indeed, decline.
That horrible crashing sound you hear is a gravy train derailing.
...
Go to Time.com sometime. Feels like you’re at DU or the DailyKos, I kid you not. If they can still deny their leftist bias after what they put on their website, they’re truly lost and delusional.
An oldie
But a goodie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.