Ken Layne on why The New Times circulation has plummetted 5.3% in the last six months

kenlayne.com ^ | May 6, 2003 | Ken Layne

[Timesink]

Here's what Romenesko's page says today:

Most major newspapers report flat, slightly declining circ
Wall Street Journal
The latest Audit Bureau of Circulation figures show that daily circulation for U.S. newspapers was basically flat, off 0.1 percent in the latest reporting period. Michael J. McCarthy writes that USA Today added to its lead as the country's top-selling paper with its average weekday circulation gaining 1.8 percent, to 2,250,474. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times follow.

It's technically correct. But take a look at the actual WSJ story and you'll see this:

[The] New York Times stayed in third place, even as its average weekday circulation during the six-month period fell 5.3%, the largest decline among the top papers.

The New York Times' circulation fell 5.3 percent, nearly triple the drop of the next biggest loser (the Washington Post at 1.92 percent). In six months, the NYT's weekday circulation dropped by more than 60,000 copies. That means the number of papers sold dropped by an average of 10,000 every month between October 2002 and March 2003.

This was not exactly a slow news period: North Korea admitted it had a nuclear weapons program, the D.C. sniper was on the loose, a French tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen, terrorists killed hundreds in Bali and the Philippines, Republicans swept mid-term elections (save for the Democratic sweep in California), ANSWER led protests around the world, "Old Europe" fought its last battle, there were massive anti-mullah demonstrations in Iran, Trent Lott went down, UN weapons inspectors went nowhere, Venezuela went crazy, Columbia didn't make it home, the Axis of Weasels was exposed, everybody got worked up about a nightclub fire, there was that little War in Iraq, etc.

Of course the NYT was mostly busy whining about a golf tournament ....

Did any newspaper pick up the kind of circulation such a weird & heavy news cycle seems to merit? Why, yes:

The New York Post, owned by News Corp., continued a recent run of impressive circulation gains with a 10% increase, to 620,080. The Post, which has been rising up the newspaper ranks, held steady at No. 8, but closed in on Tribune Co.'s Chicago Tribune, ranked No. 7 with an average daily circulation of 621,055. The Chicago paper's result was off 1.1%.

Mind you, this is the fifth consecutive double-digit circulation gain for the Post. Just two years ago, its daily circulation was 487,630. Since March 2001, the number of copies sold per weekday has risen by 133,425. Nearly 90 percent of this growth is in the NYC metro region, and in November the Post reported a "72 percent rise in readership among people ages 24 to 34."

Most papers saw a brief circulation increase following the Sept. 11 attacks. The New York Post's incredible growth streak was well underway before 9/11: The Audit Bureau of Circulation reported a 22 percent gain for the six-month period beginning in April 2001. (After many years of ownership nightmares, Murdoch was allowed to buy the Post -- for the second time -- and start taking on the city's biggest tabloid, the NY Daily News. Here's a little story I wrote about it in 1997.)

Other than the Wall Street Journal, which stayed at 1,820,600 over the last six months, the traditional broadsheets all saw circulation drops. (I exclude the Houston Chronicle and its alleged .51 percent gain, because it cheats by including Saturday circulation.) The NYT, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post all lost readers and will continue to lose readers. Only the much-maligned USA Today gained among the broadsheets. Anybody remember the days before Fox News when USA Today ("McPaper") was the great threat to dullard journalism police? Otherwise, all the gains on the Top Ten Papers List were made by New York tabloids: the Daily News, Newsday and the Post. God that makes me happy.

I love metro tabloids. Call me a weirdo, but I just love newspaper competition.

¶

05/06/2003 04:36:52 PM

Comments (6)

[martin_fierro]

You must create a NYT Schadenfreude Ping List, and then you must add me to it. <|:)~

[martin_fierro]

[follow the money]

The New York Times ia a U.N agenda machine

[FreedomCalls]

Raines has got to go!

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Ok, I'm confused. The New Times owns the New York Times? I thought the New Times owns most metropolis alternative papers, not the New York Times?

[Pharmboy]

When I moved to Morris County, NJ last summer, I told the Times to stop my home delivery. She asked me where we were moving to, as the Times would probably deliver there also. She was shocked wehn I told her "no thanks; the paper has become unreadable."

Two other items should also be mentioned: the Times is now a buck a throw and the Post is 25 cents during the week, both of which can affect circulation numbers.

[John Beresford Tipton]

Price also has something to do with it:
The NYT raised its price recently from $.75 to $1.00

The Post is priced at $.25 while its competitor the NY Daily news is $.50

[jalisco555]

I used to really enjoy reading the Times. It was always lefty on it's op-ed pages but did a good job of objective news reporting. Now, the paper is just one long, tedious, unreadable leftist editorial. I'm angry that one of the very few well-written newspapers is no more.

[Drango]

If you want to read (long) almost everything about the Jayson Blair scandle and the NY Times...here is the thread link

[sd-joe]

"I exclude the Houston Chronicle and its alleged .51 percent gain, because it cheats by including Saturday circulation.)"

Note that the LA Times also includes Saturday in its numbers, and it also showed a decline.

Could it be that Liberalism is losing its hold on the nations news distribution? One can only hope.

[Mister Baredog]

Call me a weirdo, but I just love newspaper competition.

I live in a ONE paper city, LA, I'd pay double for a newspaper printed by someone other that Marxist extremist liberals like the LA Slimes.

[magua]

raines must stay.In five more years he will be down over 20%.

[reformed_democrat]

You must create a NYT Schadenfreude Ping List, and then you must add me to it.

And ME!

I love watching the numbers drop for the NYTimes, WashPost, CNN -- It's like having the Fourth of July all year long.

[No Truce With Kings]

"I exclude the Houston Chronicle and its alleged .51 percent gain, because it cheats by including Saturday circulation."

When I first moved to Houston in 1979 there were two papers -- the left-wing Houston Post, and the more centrist Houston Chronicle. At the time I subscribed to the Post because it had a morning edition. Didn't like it because it was soooo far left. But it was the only morning paper.

Then the Chronicle came out with a morning edition sometimes in the 1980s. I immediately subscribed, and dropped the Post. Not that the Chronicle was conservative, but they were more balanced than the post, and did not slant every story with the automaic assumption that ALL Buiness is BAD.

I guess a lot of people agreed, because the Post went out of bidness in the 1990s. That of of only mild interest (as I had movd to East Texas).

Then I moved back to Houston. Whaddo I find?

The 2002/03 Chronicle makes the 1980s Post look like the WSJ by comparison. The news articles read like editorials and the editorials read like they are being written by interns from the Michigan and Berkely student papers.

I guess absent competition the Chron decided *it* could set the rules as to what its audience deserves.

It's ugly man. I refuse to subscribe.

[CathyRyan]

To bad and so sad it is not the Washington Compost and the Latrine Times.

[Tamzee]

Circulation of the nation's 20 biggest newspapers (NY Times slipping)
Source:PoliticsNY.com; Published: 5/5/03

Average weekday circulation of the nation's 20 biggest newspapers for the six months ended March 31, as reported by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The percentage changes are from the same period a year ago.

1. USA Today, 2,250,474, up 1.8 percent
2. The Wall Street Journal, 1,820,600, unchanged
3. The New York Times, 1,130,740, down 5.3 percent
4. Los Angeles Times, 979,549, down 0.6 percent (a)
5. The Washington Post, 796,367, down 1.9 percent
6. New York Daily News, 737,030, up 0.7 percent
7. Chicago Tribune, 621,055, down 1.1 percent
8. New York Post, 620,080, up 10.2 percent
9. Newsday of New York's Long Island, 579,351, up 0.3 percent
10. Houston Chronicle, 548,508, up 0.5 percent (a)
11. The Dallas Morning News, 532,050, up 1.1 percent
12. San Francisco Chronicle, 514,265 (b)
13. Chicago Sun-Times, 491,795, up 0.9 percent
14. The Arizona Republic, 486,131, down 2.1 (a)
15. The Boston Globe, 448,817, down 6.3 percent
16. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 419,568 (b)
17. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 407,730, up 0.3 percent
18. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 386,890, up 1.5 percent
19. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 375,505 (a,b)
20. The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, 373,137, up 1.3 percent (a)

(a) includes Saturday circulation

(b) paper had a change in the number of editions or a change in reporting periods. No comparable figures were provided

---

I can't wait to see what happens when Murdoch gets DirecTV and negotiates to have Fox News Channel more widely distributed... I'm betting these liberal rags dive even further when more folks see day-after-day how extremely slanted the liberal papers are compared to the real information about events.

[Faraday]

Does anyone know if stats on newspaper internet sites are available? I've dropped all newspaper subs due to the availability of the content on-line. I do subscribe to the Wall Street Journal on-line--it is far less than the "hard copy" version, and is continuously updated. However, I refuse to register for the NYT or WP. All their content becomes available quickly in any event. Note how Drudge can link to their articles/columns and registration is not required. The socialist rags are clearly losing impact to objective and conservative sources.

[Fractal Trader]

Traffic Rank for washingtonpost.com  (what's this)

Range: 3m  6m  1y	Size: Medium | Large

[Sonny M]

The NYT is losing circulation for reasons more then just being liberal. They have also gotten very far out of touch, for even liberal tastes. While they were trying to pump up augusta into a big story, people weren't that interested, or had already formed opinions, and didn't get excited about seeing the headlines. NYT was doing stories, that did not generate interest to most people. Alot of liberals had interests and would like to heave read articles or known about certain things, but the Times, in its elitist arrogance, was doing its own thing. Its sports section has also gotten somewhat shoddy, and now its credibility has been harmed. The NY Post has also been doing a hit piece on the times, during the war, which opened alot of people eyes, they may have converted to the Post, or went with the WSJ or Daily News, but either way, the perception of poor credibilty has a very harmfull affect. The Times also seemed to be pouring more and more money into the politics section, and second to that, business. Everywhere else they got sloppy, and people, simply started reading other papers. If most of the media is liberal, and your paper is liberal, your going to need something more to get and keep readers, instead the times got lazy. The post is right of center, the daily news is moderate in views, newsday is left wing. The internet is also bruising the Times, and with there prices going up, people don't seem then as being that much better then say the WSJ, or the Post, or the daily news.