Why do newspapers publish any circulation or readership figures? To impress advertisers (and, after that, themselves). So when the Times says it's wooed 29,000 more monthly subscribers beyond its digital paywall (on top of the 50,000 it had on 31 October), will advertisers be impressed? It is hard to see why.
Some 55,000 Times print customers have disappeared over the year. There is no evidence that they've bought digital-only subscriptions instead. None of the three digital growth areas – online, Sunday Times on iPads or Kindles – offers the same service to advertisers in any case. So saying that the Times's reach has increased by 3% overall for them is irrelevance.
This doesn't mean that the Wapping paywall is either a success or a failure. You can leave that judgment open. It just means it's impossible to tell unless News International publishes all the facts. Of course it's tempting for papers struggling to hold print sales to lump print and online readership together. The FT seems to do it with tolerable conviction, and ABC auditing is edging towards integration. But no one, least of all a canny advertiser, will take claims about reach at face value until the rules on what counts (and what doesn't) get a darned sight more consistent – and disclosure a darned sight more total.
Comments in chronological order (Total 4 comments)
3 April 2011 1:07AM
Why did Dan Sabbagh very conveniently choose to ignore print costs when he was writing his organ grinder article.
Not because they were difficult to calculate. Hey he could have even done some basic research (he's supposed to be a journalist after all) and ask the Guardian's production editor.
But let's not let the facts get in the way of taking a cheap shot at a rival.
And now PP is playing the same games. He really should know better.
"Former editor indulges in dodgy journalism to suit the picture that his publishers wish to paint"
Surely not.
"Some 55,000 Times print customers have disappeared over the year. "
For the record. How many Guardian and Observer print customers have disappeared.
We should be told.
But I doubt that we will.
3 April 2011 6:55PM
Tomorrow The Times circulation printed circulation will go up by 1 and The Guardian's will go down by 1. This is a protest at the way the guardian has allowed a bunch of senile delinquents to commandeer the Quick Crossword comments and turn it in to a GERIATRIC'S CHATROOM
4 April 2011 4:28AM
Also, to keep shareholders and analysts informed.
4 April 2011 8:53AM
This is becoming so cliche, but when you pay for something as a customer, you give it value.
A paying Times reader is going to be more attractive to advertisers because they are 'hooked in' into the Times brand.
Media is basically fishing: you want the fisherman who cares about the fish it wants, not a hanger-on.