Circulation problems

Circulation problems
: Ken Layne finds significance in the 5.3 percent circ decline just reported for the New York Times in the last six months. He forgets one key factor: The Times increased its newsstand price in New York from 75 cents to $1 on Dec. 30. That always leads to a decline in circulation, especially such a big increase.

I find more significance in the steady 10-percent-plus increases the New York Post is getting (at the same time that the Post of the airwaves, FoxNews, climbs to the top).

News with attitude is what’s winning.

  • Soren Ryherd

    Let’s see, a 33% price hike and a 5% circulation decline. That’s a no-brainer win for the Times.
    Of course, I read the free online version as do many others and that isn’t reflected in their circ. numbers.
    As to the ‘news with attitude’ comment. It is true that during the war the big winners have been the avowedly patriotic news channels. However, I’ll still take a well-written, thoughtful, and factually accurate article over FoxHype any day.

  • Big Lou from Brooklyn

    Quick and dirty – Post costs a quarter. Times costs a buck.
    Drawn out Reason #1 for circulation difference. The economy of the city sucks. If all you want is a quick recap of the news (with big pictures), the box scores to the lates Mets game, maybe a list of the ponies running at the track (My dad is the king of the $2 better’s. Him and the rest of the gamblers at the city’s pony themed retirement village swear by the Post), then the Post is for you and its cheap.
    Reason #2 – The Times is now the size of a magazine. You can’t read the whole thing, even if you wanted to. Plus the news part is only one of 5 sections. The rest is interesting filler, but there may be only one article in that pile that reaaly interests you. So you spend a buck and throw most of it away.
    Reason # 3 – The Times now costs the same as the WSJ. It used to be, quite recently actually, that the Times cost 50 cents and the WSJ 75. So naturally, you bought the Times and saved a quarter, thinking that you still got a bargain compared to the 25 cents Post. Now they both cost the same and it makes more sense to buy the WSJ because it gives you more accurate news minus the BS.
    Reason # 4 – Welcome to the Internet. Times is free on the net. Why pay a buck for something that you can get for free. I won’t even go into how blogging has replaced in my mind much of the need for certain news agencies.
    Big Lou

  • Soren Ryherd

    “I won’t even go into how blogging has replaced in my mind much of the need for certain news agencies.”
    Heh. A year ago a client told me that soon most everyone would get the majority of their news from blogs. I went slackjawed, and my otherwise hip boss said “What’s a blog?”.
    Times keep a’changin’.