Circulation figures confirm the future is still online, local and in the long tail
February 17, 2010
Yesterday, the 2009 circulation figures for Norwegian newspapers were published, and it was pretty much the same story as the year before, and the year before that come to think of it.
So, putting on my obsessive compulsive blogger hat, I figured I might as well stick with pretty much the same blog title as in previous years so that all media friends in ADD mode reading this post will be reminded that we’re speaking of a trend (pardon my somewhat private joke, but my sarcasm is aimed as much at myself as anybody else).
Some niche papers saw pretty decent circulation increases in 2009, though the overall picture for niche papers is more mixed than in the previous three years. Small local newspapers could also record increases, while the big regional newspapers saw circulation decrease. The worst circulation decline was reserved for national tabloids VG (7,7 per cent) and Dagbladet (14,7 per cent) – but if my memory serves me right these papers’ have seen circulation decline steadily for close to two decades now, it has certainly been the case for the last three years, and both papers now have more readers online than in print. Online is still a growth area in terms of readership, but it will be interesting to see how online ad revenues have fared in 2009 when the big media companies publish their annual results. For full details on the 2009 circulation figures, check out Kampanje or Journalisten (in Norwegian).
As for the decline experienced by the big regionals, I wonder if this is not a result of the effects of consolidation, perhaps combined with recession. The merger between the big regionals and Schibsted-owned Aftenposten has led to many of the same articles being used by all the papers, and I wonder if this has not contributed to some homes opting to keep only a national paper - and not a national and a regional as many homes used to do - especially with more households feeling the economic chill.
It's much the same in Australia. Newspaper executives don't like to admit that content syndication has contributed to circulation decline, but surely it has.
We live in a border region half way between Melbourne and Adelaide. In the past, if you bought both city papers you'd have different content.
Today, the Murdoch dailies in Melbourne and Adelaide print much of the same content, especially sport, national and world news. On weekends they offer the same lift-outs.
Why would you buy both?
Posted by: Michael | February 19, 2010 at 06:28 AM
So, effectively they are digging their own graves? I've heard many people say the same (why would they buy both given how much of the content is the same).
It reminds me of this bit from a debate I covered: "At this point, the eminent chair of the debate, Eva Bratholm, asked Birger Magnus if not Media Norway would mean much greater reliance on syndication, and if that wouldn't mean reduced staffing and a situation where you had one journalist only to cover each subject across many titles. "You have to do that, but you have to do it in a clever way," said Magnus."
Posted by: Kristine Lowe | February 21, 2010 at 01:21 PM
I think newspaper executives saved a lot of money by syndicating content, much more than they lost in circulation revenue. It was a short-term gain though and is now starting to bite.
Magnus was right, it can work if cleverly done, eg change the story's intro and some of the content.
Sounds good in theory, but when there are personnel changes and pressure is applied it all falls apart.
Posted by: Michael | February 26, 2010 at 09:55 AM