Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 26 2013

18:16

April 30 2012

15:51

February 10 2012

15:17

December 01 2011

19:42

September 19 2011

18:13

Nielsen Quantcast, Hitwise Compete, Google's Doubleclick - Which service is right for you?

AdAge :: The online marketing world has never been more awash in quantifiable information on audience sizes, demographic make-ups and the paths they travel through the web. But the flip side is that we are in danger of becoming overwhelmed by data distractions. 

That's why AdAge put together this nice summary for making sense of the online measurement space. ComScore and Nielsen remain in a category on their own as the primary trusted planning sources for advertisers and agencies placing ad dollars, though ComScore has arguably pulled ahead in recent years, largely due to a loss in faith in Nielsen's accuracy after multiple disclosures about glitches in its counting. Yet a host of new players, such as Quantcast, Compete, Hitwise and Google, are starting to emerge as additional rich sources of online data. 

Continue to read Cotton Delo, adage.com

August 02 2011

06:35

Peter Kafka: Why watch TV at home when you have a perfectly good iPhone to squint at?

AllThingsD :: Yet more evidence that “mobile” is relative when it comes to smartphones, iPads, and online video. Here’s another study that says lots of people are watching stuff on their gadgets when they’re just a few feet from their own TVs. This one comes from Nielsen, and was commissioned by the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing trade group. The takeaway: Users are most likely to watch video via apps from the likes of YouTube, Hulu and others when they’re at home.

Continue to read Peter Kafka, allthingsd.com

July 28 2011

09:16

How and what Netflix and Hulu users are watching?

nielsen wire :: Streaming video online is on the rise in the U.S., and how consumers tune in differs greatly across services. According to a recent Nielsen survey, the majority of Netflix users report watching on a TV screen. In fact, half of all Netflix users connect via a game console (Wii, PS3 or Xbox Live).

Nielsen-netflix-hulu-viewing-type
Source: nielsen, March 2011 - Nielsen completed more than 12,000 online interviews in March 2011, focusing on usage and attitudes for over-the-top video, particularly Netflix and Hulu.

Continue to read blog.nielsen.com

08:49

You Have an App for That… Now What? What works and how to market your app

Jonathan Carson, CEO of Telecom at Nielsen, shared some market insights during Nielsen's Consumer 360 conference. Main questions: What apps work? How to market them?

nielsen wire :: Jonathan Carson noted that branded apps that “give back” are much more popular than other apps. Rewards apps are particularly popular.

nielsen's graphic indicate that (brand) apps have a discovery problem: 

Nielsen-app-what-works
Source: nielsen study QI-II, 2011, "Respondents who are aware of Brand Apps" 

When it comes to promoting and marketing an app, Carson underscored the importance of “word-of-mouth.” In fact, for branded apps, it is the most common form of “discovery.” For other kinds of apps, “searching the app store” is tops. Consumers also indicated that brand affinity and third party endorsements in the form of ratings and reviews were crucial in their decision to download a branded app. What else?

Continue to read blog.nielsen.com

July 03 2011

14:07

Nielsen research - (News) startups: 12 key steps to launch your product successfully

nielsenwire :: Millions of dollars are spent developing and launching new products each year, but the reality is only 10 percent will succeed. While this has been the accepted norm and considered the “cost of doing business,” a new approach unveiled at Nielsen’s U.S. Consumer 360 conference improves the likelihood of new product success to 75 percent (claimed by Nielsen). Based on tracking 600 product launches and testing 20,000 concepts, Nielsen outlined a 12-step process with specific recommendations on what companies should change before a new product launch in order to increase chances of success. 

Twelf steps to success - continue to read blog.nielsen.com

July 02 2011

20:13

You have an app for that… now what? - Importance of "word-of-mouth"

nielsenwire :: When it comes to promoting and marketing an app, Jonathan Carson, CEO of Telecom at Nielsen underscored the importance of “word-of-mouth.” In fact, for branded apps, it is the most common form of “discovery.” For other kinds of apps, “searching the app store” is tops. Consumers also indicated that brand affinity and third party endorsements in the form of ratings and reviews were crucial in their decision to download a branded app.

Nielsenwire-discovery-problem

More details and findings - continue to read blog.nielsen.com

19:54

nielsenwire - Smartphones now majority of new cellphone purchases (US)

nielsenwire :: Apple iOS up, Android flat, Research In Motion, or RIM down among recent acquirers. Smartphones continue to grow in popularity. According to Nielsen’s May survey of mobile consumers in the U.S., 38 percent now own smartphones. And 55 percent of those who purchased a new handset in the past three months reported buying a smartphone instead of a feature phone, up from 34 percent just a year ago.

"In US, Smartphones Now Majority of New Cellphone Purchases" - Continue to read blog.nielsen.com

June 16 2011

05:27

Nielsen's Cross Platform Report: (U.S.) consumers watch more TV, mobile and web video

Nielsen Wire :: Cross Platform Report : Though still accounting for just a handful of hours per month, mobile video viewing continues to see marked gains, with the number of Americans watching video on their mobile devices increasing 41 percent over last year and more than 100 percent since 2009. Timeshifted TV continues to grow, both in the penetration of DVR devices in the home and the time spent. Internet video streaming also saw increases in time spent; this behavior is the highest among a younger and diverse subset of the population. More?

Understanding the video consumer - continue to browse through the (free downloadable) report blog.nielsen.com

June 12 2011

19:01

Initiative: TV ads increasingly performance-based, bad for Nielsen's (online) ratings system?

GigaOM :: Two executives from media agency Initiative said TV ads will increasingly become performance-based, moving the industry beyond just trying to amass huge audiences. That could throw a huge monkey wrench into the way brands and agencies think about media buying, and could be disruptive to Nielsen’s ratings system.

Continue to read Ryan Lawler, gigaom.com

June 11 2011

05:02

68pc of smartphone and tablet owners use them while watching TV

ClickZ :: Agencies and advertisers are becoming increasingly intrigued by the relationship between users' consumption of TV content, and their use of mobile connected devices. According to new research by The Nielsen Company, that link is a strong one, and over 68 percent of tablet and smartphone owners report using them in front of their televisions.

Continue to read Jack Marshall, www.clickz.com

May 27 2011

17:47

High ratings for American Idol, Oprah but TV Networks see key audience erode

AdWeek :: According to Nielsen television viewership of 18 to 49 year olds (on traditional TV sets) dropped over the course of the TV season for the second year in a row, despite the recent high ratings for show finales including “American Idol” and “Oprah.” According to Nielsen, the overall TV audience grew 1.5 percent over the past year to about 61.3 million people, but numbers for the younger demographic are down.

Continue to read Emma Bazilian, www.adweek.com

May 26 2011

05:59

The iPad is more popular than the Kindle ... in the bathroom

Business Insider | SAI :: The Nielsen company decided to take a look at how and where people are using their smartphones, tablets, and eReaders. Turns out tablets, like the iPad, spend more time in the bathroom than eReaders, like the Kindle. Another interesting finding: people are using their iPads while watching TV more than anything else.

Continue to read Jay Yarow, www.businessinsider.com

October 19 2010

14:00

NAA finds a more favorable website stats vendor — but misses the readership shift to mobile news

When last we checked on the Newspaper Association of America’s web stats (and other data) back in April, the monthly website usage information that the nation’s daily newspaper organization was publishing came from Nielsen Online, and it wasn’t all that pretty.

The NAA tried to put the best spin on the data, but as we pointed out at the time, time spent at newspaper sites was in the doldrums and getting gradually worse, with three of the seven shortest attention spans measured by Nielsen occuring in the first quarter of 2010: 34:10 minutes in January, 31:39 minutes in February, and 32:21 minutes in March. For context, consider that at the time, also according to Nielsen, the average Facebook user was spending nearly seven hours on the social networking site.

It looks like NAA was not happy with those first quarter web stats. It published April data from Nielsen but offered no further updates for four months. At that point, I inquired whether NAA had decided to stop publishing the data, and was informed by Jeff Sigmund, director of communications, that “a new methodology” was in the works.

The new methodology turns out be be Comscore. Last Thursday, NAA posted Comscore data for September, and simultaneously wiped all the old Nielsen data off its site. The reason for the switch is clear: Comscore’s results are more favorable to newspapers than Nielsen’s in several categories, as trumpeted in an NAA press release.

As part of the switch, Comscore provides NAA with data specific demographic slices, something it didn’t get from Nielsen. For example, it reports: “More than 55 percent of adults in the 25-to-34-year-old demographic visited a newspaper website in September. During that same time period, 52 percent of this age group visited Yahoo! News Network, 22 percent visited CNN and 24 percent visited MSNBC.” We’d love to drill a little deeper there, but that particular comparison seems to suggest that, with no real statistical difference between Yahoo News and the entire newspaper business in reach among 25-to-34-year-olds, Yahoo offers a vastly more efficient one-stop ad buy than newspapers do.

Similarly, NAA says Comscore found that “one-in-four (25 percent) of adult newspaper website visitors come from households earning at least $100,000 a year, compared to 21 percent of all adult Internet users.” News consumption and newspaper readership have always skewed a bit toward higher income strata, so that’s not surprising — in fact, that four percent advantage is not particularly impressive, and here again, advertisers can easily find sites that are far more efficient in reaching high-income consumers.

When compared with the old Nielsen data, the benefits of the vendor switch are obvious. In March, Nielsen found 72.1 million unique visitors, which was about equal to the average for the previous 9 months. But in September, Comcast identified 102.8 million UVs, “almost two-thirds (61 percent) of all adult Internet users” according to the NAA release. (The release explains that Comcast is now NAA’s preferred methodology because “it more accurately reflects the true size of the newspaper Web home and at-work online audience,” but it offers no explanation of the major discrepancies between the old and new systems. “More accurately” seems to mean “they found more of them.”)

Time spent, or engagement, is the metric that matters most to advertisers these days. Unique visitors, no matter how impressive a slice of the total web audience they represent, don’t deliver customers to advertisers. They key is whether site visitors are engaging — interacting — with the content and the advertising on the site, and that kind of engagement still eludes most online newspapers.

The NAA release says “the findings point to engagement,” without putting that engagement in context or mentioning the specific per user/per visit “time spent” portion of Comscore’s findings, which are posted in the “Trends and Numbers” section of NAA’s site. There, Comscore reports 3.8 minutes per September visit, and 8.5 visits per visitor, for the month. That’s 32.3 minutes per visitor, total, for the month of September — a result slightly below the first-quarter average of 32 minutes, 43 seconds found by Nielsen. So in the engagement metric, “more accurate” means “almost exactly the same.”

So, while it’s no doubt statistically invalid to directly compare the Nielsen and Comcast findings, what NAA seems to have bought by switching is a larger audience spending about the same amount of time per visitor. And that “time spent” by either method boils down to an average of about a minute per user per day — still only about one half of one percent of all time spent online.

Comscore measured a total of 3.3 billion minutes spent at (U.S.) newspaper websites (compared to an average of 2.3 billion in the first quarter — the increase being due to the improved UV count) which sounds like a lot until you consider that (in August, and globally) we collectively spent 41.1 billion minutes at Facebook. Those figures should not be directly compared, but it’s clear that newspapers, collectively, enjoy just a fraction of the attention the top social network commands.

Perhaps more important than all of this statistical nitpicking, though, is the fact that while the NAA fiddles with methodology and stat sourcing, the audience is in the middle of another major shift in its digital news consumption from web browsers to mobile platforms — smartphones, e-readers and tablets. By sometime in 2012, cumulative sales of iPads, alone, will likely exceed the number of home-delivered newspaper subscriptions. The majority of mobile content consumption is likely to fall on the leisure side of the consumer’s online time — enabling deeper, longer engagement than the fleeting workday news consumption being measured by Nielsen and Comscore. Many newspapers are in fact working to follow their audience in this shift (though few are leading them there), but NAA is still stuck in an earlier mode of touting questionable browser traffic stats.

NAA’s vendor switch may mean a somewhat more impressive monthly press release, but it misses the mark of what it should really be doing to help its members find a digital audience. It’s time for NAA to dig much more deeply and broadly into this shifting landscape — to begin measuring and comparing news consumption in print, in broadcast, on computers and on mobile devices. So far, few news media have found ways to make their digital versions profitable, let alone self-sustaining in the absence of their legacy print versions. Will they ever get there, when their national trade organization is still refining “methodology” for counting its web browser audience, while that very audience is rapidly shifting its consumption to a whole new generation of digital devices in which usage of apps, rather than websites, is what counts?

Image by Eric Skiff used under a Creative Commons license.

September 14 2010

04:01

Five important mobile app findings for news orgs

A new report out today gives news organizations reasons to start thinking mobile apps (if they haven’t already). The Pew Internet and American Life Project partnered with Nielsen to survey cellphone users on their app habits, finding that about 43 percent of cellphone users have an app on their device, though only about 24 percent actually use them. With smartphone market share expected to accelerate its rapid growth, app usage is also sure to increase. Here are five data points from the Pew-Nielsen report that stood out to me as noteworthy for news organizations:

Young people like apps

Struggling to get those young consumers? They’re the single most app-friendly bunch. About 47 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they’ve downloaded an app, compared to 39 percent of 20- to 49-year-olds and just 14 percent of 50-plus. That’s important, particularly when paired with a previous Pew finding that showed that young people have taken to giving mobile donations. That’s a good mix for nonprofit news organizations. (Though even with Apple’s newly explained rules, in-app donations aren’t allowed on the iPhone.)

People who use apps consume news online

Apps could be a good way to hang onto your audience, letting them follow you onto another platform. The report surveyed app users about their online activities, revealing that they are more likely to be online news consumers than are non-app users: 90 percent of app users consume news online, compared to 75 percent of non-app users. Also, they are more likely to visit a video sharing site, 80 percent versus 66 percent.

News apps do relatively well

Sure, puzzles (36 percent), Facebook (42 percent), and Google Maps (35 percent) are wildly popular with app users, but look down the list and it’s clear that news isn’t insignificant. Asked which apps they used in the last month, 9 percent of users said CNN, 8 percent USA Today, 7 percent New York Times, and 7 percent Fox. Other local apps for food and entertainment pull in similar percentages, perhaps a good indicator for local news organizations.

People digest apps in small doses

The study found that most users who use their apps daily do so for less than 30 minutes. Asked for context, 71 percent said they use their apps when they’re alone, 53 percent while waiting for someone or something, and 36 percent while commuting. It seems like people want a few moments here and there with their apps, an environment where a good headline or a snappy lede is particularly important.

People will pay

Of all the apps downloaded in a typical month, more were paid than free. That’s good news, though the largest category, 28 percent of all downloads, was still only in the $1-$1.99 category. Another 17 percent of all downloads were in the $2-$2.99 range, 17 percent in the $3-$4.99 range, and 23 percent were $5 or more. Though small amounts, they’re still more than zero — the amount many have proven willing to pay for content on the web.

May 06 2010

14:30

The Newsonomics of simplicity

[Each week, our friend Ken Doctor — author of Newsonomics and longtime watcher of the business side of digital news — writes about the economics of the news business for the Lab.]

More and more, I’m thinking we’re making this new digital business too complicated. Sure, the technology behind the business is awe-inspiring — but then so was hydropower and electrification. Technology is often complex and developed by only a minority of us, while a majority of us are put to the task, and the fun, of using it.

The digital news business itself can be a blur, followed via Romenesko, Twitter, or the PowerPoint poison of your choosing. Lots there, always on. But business solutions — serving readers and advertisers better — aren’t complicated, and the more complex we make them, the less seems to get done.

Take this well-used quote from Larry Bossidy, once chairman of Honeywell, a prince of another technology era: “If you can’t describe your strategy in 20 minutes, simply and in plain language, you haven’t got a plan. ‘But,’ people may say, ‘I’ve got a complex strategy. It can’t be reduced to a page.’ That’s nonsense. That’s not a complex strategy. It’s a complex thought about the strategy.”

We can parse the differences between complex and complicated in the digital business, but won’t do it here. Probably the better exercise is to see how good a strategy you can express in a single tweet. And, of course, the collective consciousness has that figured out; small business blogger Lora Kolodny talked about the art — and four competitions based on it — recently in her New York Times blog.

Recently, as I look at the latest strategies being deployed, I’ve been using this emerging prism of simplicity. Here the newsonomics are simple: Make it easier to make new revenue; save expenses by adopting simpler solutions. I’ll share a few here, and hope you’ll add to them.

  • People love coupons: That’s at the top of the duh list, but the love is still eye-popping. Nielsen recently reported the explosion of digital coupons, with their redemption up 263 percent year-over-year. According to the report, newspapers are still the main source of coupon distribution, at 89 percent, and newspaper inserts account for the most coupons redeemed, at 53 percent. As Twitter studied commercial patterns, in the run-up to launching Promoted Tweets, what did they notice? Retailers like Whole Foods and Starbucks found their followers (and Facebook fans!) loved coupons. So now the challenge: taking that simple challenge and delivering location-aware, buying-interest-aware coupons, on the right platform, to the right customers, at the right time. Yes, that Wednesday food coupon is less old-fashioned than we think; now the simplicity required is finding the right technology to seamlessly offer digital coupons to news customers — before non-news companies do a better job of it.
  • Flyerboard: I recently talked to Victor Wong, one of the co-founders of Flyerboard, the oh-so-simple digital ad flier product that now finds itself on more than 100 newspaper sites, first adopted by Hearst and most recently by McClatchy. As a Yale undergraduate, he and a couple friends noticed that someone had begun digitizing the printed fliers commonly found on college neighborhood kiosks and walls. They then opened a company — PaperG — moved to commercialize the notion and have found great early uptake, based on an incredibly simple idea. They are now moving forward with PlaceLocal, a potentially far bigger idea: Harvest all the freely available digital information about local busineses, sweep it into templates, create spec ads on the fly and sell those to local retailers. Both ideas simply use already available information, repurporsed by smart technology and a company of a dozen or so people.
  • Outsourced regional editions: Okay, so you are The New York Times, and you want to double down on local engagement. You want to be a great national paper, but also a little regional, aware that such content might increase retention of all-important print subscribers. But you’re The New York Times, and the economics of the business don’t justify paying six-figure salaries to new regional staff. So you ask where can you get high-quality, low-cost journalism supply, and take advantage (in a symbiotic way) of the advent of the Chicago News Cooperative and Bay Citizen. You simply take advantage of the outflow of real talent out of top newsrooms — and stretch your six-figure payments to get lots more content than a single staffer would provide.
  • Content management in a cloud: Emerging from bankruptcy, Freedom Communications just announced an expansion of its relationship with technology provider DTI. It will move what had been its own hosted circulation and marketing management to DTI Cloud. Why hire, train and pay your own full-time tech staff — at each paper, I’d imagine — when a single company can give you a hosted, software-as-a-service solution in the cloud? Simple, in concept, at least: use someone else’s centralized technology to solve a problem that is replicated multiple times across multiple properties. Cloud computing, of course, isn’t new, but the newspaper industry has adopted it unevenly. MediaSpectrum (ads and content management) and Clickability (content management) are among the companies that have worked this cloud landscape in the news industry. Cloud “installations” carry their own support issues, of course; all solutions do. We’d have to believe, though, that the often-complex and costly solutions to production, printing, distribution, finance, and HR used in the news industry can benefit from some more heavenly solutions. Better to slim here and put resources into content creation and ad selling.

That’s just the top of a list. What else has the news industry done to introduce smart simplicity — or what else should it do?

April 05 2010

16:43

Is print still king? Has online made a move? Updating a controversial post

A year ago, in a Nieman Journalism Lab post that garnered 88 comments and still has viral life out there, I maintained that just three percent of newspaper content consumption happens online; the rest of it happens the old fashioned way, by people reading ink on dead trees. Given the continuing attention being paid to that conclusion (it was cited just last month by Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, in testimony to the Federal Trade Commission), let’s revisit the numbers and see whether anything has changed.

With updates or improved data on at least some of the numbers, the general conclusions still hold: U.S. newspapers have not pushed much of their audience to their websites, nor have they followed the migration of their readership to the web. Their combined print and online readership metrics, whether measured in pageviews or in time spent, show that there’s been significant attrition since last year in the total audience for newspaper content, and that the fraction of that audience consuming newspaper content online remains in the low-to-mid single digits.

Here’s how I arrived at the numbers this year (to follow this more closely, or check my math, you can view my worksheet here):

Point of comparison: Pageviews

First, a comparison of pageviews in print and pageviews online. In print, I projected pageviews for newspaper content by taking the 2008 paid circulation reported by the Newspaper Association of America, adjusting it by the average of the two six-month circulation loss figures reported by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (March, September), and multiplying the resulting 2009 circulation by 2.128 readers per copy for weekdays and 2.477 for Sundays. (This is a 2007 Scarborough Research (PDF link) number I used last year also, but readers per copy has been a very consistent figure with little variation for decades.) This yielded total readership for weekdays and Sundays. I then made the same (discussable) assumption as last year: that the average reader of a newspaper issue looks at 24 pages, which means there is a total of 70.602 billion printed newspaper pageviews per month. That’s down almost 19 percent from last year’s 87.1 billion pages viewed. To be fair, my audience numbers last year were also based on that 2007 Scarborough data, so that’s really a two-year decline. (Jim Conaghan, research director at the NAA, tells me they have no data on the number of printed pages readers look at on average, and that there is no update to the 2007 readers-per-copy study.)

For online pageviews, NAA offers a precise number based on research by Nielsen Online. Nielsen’s methodology changed in June 2009, so I’ve used the average of the nine months from June 2009 to February 2010, which was 3.382 billion online newspaper site pageviews per month. So for print and online combined, we have a total of 73.985 billion pageviews (versus 90.3 billion last year). In other words, as measured in pageviews, 95.43 percent of total readership for newspaper content was in print; 4.57 percent of it was online. So while it appears that the online fraction has grown from 3.5 percent in the previous analysis, the bad news is that the total content exposure has dropped by about one fifth.

Point of comparison: Time on site

Some commenters to last year’s post maintained that print and online pageviews weren’t comparable. And certainly, the current wisdom says that pageviews and unique visitors don’t count nearly as much as “engagement” as measured by time spent on site as well as interaction with content. So, as I did last year, let’s look at time spent — both in print and online, print engagement versus online engagement with the newspaper content:

For the print side of the ledger, I began with the readership counts derived as above, and assumed average time spent with printed newspapers to be 25 minutes on weekdays and 35 minutes on Sundays. Now, this assumption got considerable comment flak last year, and no doubt will have its doubters this year. For those who say “I don’t know anybody who reads a newspaper at all, so how can the average be 25 minutes?” let me say that more than 40 million newspapers are still sold every day and someone is reading them, whether you know them or not. Anecdotally, half the people I see at Amy’s in Brattleboro are spending more time that that just with the New York Times. But let’s avoid the anecdotal evidence — here’s (PDF link) some U.S. Statistical Abstract data on time spent with various media, sourced from Veronis Suhler. It claims that the average person in 2009 spent 159 hours a year with newspapers (including newspaper websites), which is 26.1 minutes a day. While this tends to support the controversial pass-along factor, it’s for the average (adult) person. Since only about half the population actually reads printed newspapers (on average per day), that would mean newspaper readers spend an average of 52 minutes a day — which just strikes me as way too high. So I’m going to stick with the happy medium of 25 minutes weekdays and 35 on Sundays until someone can improve that data. (As an additional data point: According an NAA print newspaper “engagement” study (PDF link) presented a few years ago, on weekdays 45 percent of readers spent more than 30 minutes, 34 percent between 16 and 30 minutes, 21 percent under 15 minutes. Higher times were reported for Sunday editions.)

That yields total time spent with printed newspapers of 78.471 billion minutes per month. The online side is easy: averaging the last 9 months of NAA data, we get time spent at newspaper websites of 2.535 billion minutes per month. And combining print and online time spent, we have a total of 81.006 billion minutes per month spent with newspaper content. The engagement measure, therefore, says that 96.87 percent of time spent with newspaper content was in print; 3.13 percent of time spent was online. This is almost exactly the same as last year, when I found that 3.0 percent of time spent was online. But printed newspapers have lost a big chunk of total engagement as well: this year’s numbers are down 18.9 percent from last year’s analysis, which, again, really is a two-year drop of about one-fifth, with the loss occurring on the print side.

The conclusion that the overwhelming share of newspapers’ audience remains on the print side of the ledger is supported by Scarborough’s 2008 ratings of what it called the “Integrated Newspaper Audience” (PDF link) in selected markets. Measuring the cumulative 5-day audience rather than daily averages, that data showed that the incremental audience at newspaper websites added only a few percentage points to their print reach.

NAA and Nielsen are clear that their pageviews and time-spent stats since June 2009 can’t be compared with earlier months because of methodology changes, so I’ll refrain from doing that; but clearly the print/online audience split was enormously skewed last year and remains so — and most importantly, the online side is not growing. Back in June, NAA reported 3.469 billion pageviews and 2.701 billion minutes spent; in January (to avoid the short month of February), there were 3.452 billion pageviews and 2.485 billion minutes spent. Time spent per unique visitor has fallen gradually from 38:24 minutes in June to 33:09 minutes in January. In other words, while newspapers are losing readership on the print side, that disappearing audience is not following them online; at best, the online audience for newspaper content is static.

The purpose of this analysis is not to compare all “offline” news consumption with all online news consumption; it is to dissect the newspaper content audience. But as several commenters noted last year, this really means that as the audience moves online, it is getting most of its news from non-newspaper sites.

Beyond examining the split between readers of printed and online newspaper content, I also noted in another post last year that newspaper websites attracted less than one percent of all U.S. web traffic — 0.69 percent of pageviews and 0.56 percent of time spent, to be precise, in June 2009. Updating those stats with February 2010 Nielsen Online data (also detailed in the spreadsheet linked above), over the last nine months newspapers have actually lost share in both pageviews and time spent: pageview share dropped to 0.63 percent, and time spent dropped to 0.50 percent of total web traffic.

Meanwhile at newspapers, much effort and much dialogue continues to focus on getting readers to pay for content and battling aggregators — energy that might better be spent figuring out how not to lose the sizeable remaining audience for newspaper content, not by “protecting print” but by keeping the current print readers in the fold as they, too, gradually migrate to reading news online.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl