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

December 22 2010

18:00

Martin Langeveld: Predicting more digital convergence and an AP clearinghouse, coming in 2011

Editor’s Note: We’re wrapping up 2010 by asking some of the smartest people in journalism what the new year will bring.

As we draw to a close, it’s time for this year’s predictions from Martin Langeveld, which are the closest thing we have to a tradition around here. We just posted a look back at Martin’s predictions for 2010, a year ago. Here’s what he foresees for 2011; check back next year to see how he did.

Digital convergence: News, mobile, tablets, social couponing, location-based services, RFID tags, gaming. My geezer head spins just thinking about all this, but look: All these things will not stay in separate silos. Why do you think AOL invested $50 million or more launching Patch in 500 markets, without a business model that makes sense to anyone? What’s coming down the pike is new intersections between all of these digital developments, and somehow, news is always in the picture because it’s at the top of people’s lists of content needs, right after email and search. There are business opportunities in tying all of these things together, so there are opportunities for news enterprises to be part of the action. Some attempts to find synergies will work, and some won’t.

But imagine for a moment: personalized news delivered to me on my tablet or smartphone, tailored to my demographics, preferences, and location; coupon offers and input from my social network, delivered on the same basis; the ability to interact with RFID tags on merchandise (and on just about anything else); more and more ability not only to view ads but to do transactions on tablets and phones — all of these delivered in a entertaining interfaces with gaming features (if I like games) or not (if I don’t). In other words: news delivered to me as part of a total environment aware of my location, my friends, my interests and preferences, essentially in a completely new online medium — not a web composed of sites I can browse at my leisure, but a medium delivered via a device or devices that understand me and understand what I want to know, including the news, information and commercial offers that are right for me. All of this is way too much to expect in 2011, but as a prediction, I think we’ll start to see some of the elements begin to come together, especially on the iPad.

The Associated Press clearinghouse for news. Lots of questions here: Will be it nonprofit or for-profit? Who will put up the money? Who will be in charge of it? What will it actually do? It will probably take all year to get the operation organized and launched, but I’m going to stick with the listing of opportunities I outlined when news of the clearinghouse broke. I continue to believe that the clearinghouse concept has the potential to transform the way that news content is generated, distributed and consumed. (Disclosure: I’m working on a project with the University of Missouri to explore potential business models enabled by news clearinghouses.)

Embracing real digital strategies. Among newspaper companies, Journal Register will continue to point the way: CEO John Paton ardently evangelizes for digital-first thinking — read his presentation to the recent (Nieman-cosponsored) INMA Transformation of News Summit, if you haven’t seen it. Is there another newspaper company CEO who agrees with Paton’s mantra, “Be Digital First and Print Last”? I doubt it, because what it means, in Patton’s words, is that you “put the digital people in charge, and stop listening to the newspaper people.” Most newspaper groups pay lip service to “digital first,” but in reality they’re focused on the daily print edition. And that’s why audience attention will continue to go to new media unencumbered by print, like Huffington Post, the Daily Beast, Patch, Gawker Media, and hosts of others. So for a prediction: Journal Register will outsource most of its printing, sell most of its real estate, bring the audience into its newsrooms with more news cafes like their first one in Torrington, Conn. It will announce by year end that 25 percent of its revenue is from digital sources. It will also launch online-only startups in cities and towns near its existing markets, perhaps with niche print spinoffs. And finally, toward the end of 2011, we’ll see some reluctant and tentative emulation of Paton’s strategies among a few other newspaper groups.

Newspaper advertising revenue. An extrapolation of the 2010 trend (see my 2010 scorecard) would mean 2011 quarters of, say gains of 2 percent, 4 percent, 6 percent and 8 percent. But for that to happen, marketers would have to decide, during Q4 of 2011, to direct 8 percent more money into advertising in a medium that continues to report “strategic” cuts in press runs and paid print circulation, that is not finding fresh eyeballs online, that has an audience profile getting older every year, and that has done little R&D or innovation to discover a digital future for itself. With sexy new opportunities to advertise on tablets and smartphones coming along daily, why would any brand, retailer, or advertising agency be looking to spend more in print? My prediction is for a very flat year, with the quarterly totals (for print plus online revenue) coming in at Q1: +1.5%, Q2: +2.0%, Q3: no change and Q4: -3%. That final quarter will revert to negative territory primarily because of major shifts in retail budgets to tablet and smartphone platforms and to digital competitors like Groupon.

Newspaper online ad revenue. This has been a bright spot in 2010, with gains of 4.9 percent, 13.9 percent, and 10.7 percent so far. Assume another gain in Q4. But there are several problems. First, at most newspapers a big fraction of so-called online revenue is hitched to print programs with online components, upsells, added values, or bonuses. So there’s no way to tell whether the reported numbers are real, representing actual gains purely in ads purchased on web sites, whether there’s a lot of creative accounting going on to make the online category look better than it actually is, or whether it would even exist without the print component. Secondly, there’s a lot of new competition at the local level for dollars that retailers earmark for web marketing. Groupon, alone, will do close to $1 billion in revenue this year, compared with about $3 billion total online revenue for all newspapers combined. Add the “Groupon clones” like LivingSocial, and the social couponing business is probably already at about 50 percent of newspaper online revenue, and could well pass it in 2011, very much at newspapers’ expense. That’s why I predict newspaper online revenue will be: Q1: +5.0 percent, Q2: +3.0 percent, Q3: no change and Q4: no change.

Newspaper circulation. The trendline here has been down, down, down, every six-month reporting period ending March 31 and September 30. Complicating the picture: newspapers have been selling combo packages, ABC-qualified, where a single subscriber counts for two because they are buying (sometimes on a forced basis) both a 7-day print subscription and a facsimile digital edition. Lots of inflated and un-real circulation will show up in the 2011 numbers. But if we look at print circulation alone, which ABC will continue to break out, demographics alone dictate a continuation of the negative trend. My prediction: down 5 percent in each of the spring and fall six-month ABC reporting periods. That will mean that by year’s end, print newspaper penetration will fall to about one in three households (a long way down from its postwar peak of 134 newspapers sold per 100 households in 1946).

Online news readership. There are a couple of ways to look at this. For newspaper websites, NAA recently switched from Nielsen to Comscore because they liked Comscore’s numbers better. As a base measure, Comscore is showing about 105 million monthly unique visitors and 4 billion pageviews to newspaper sites, with the average visitor spending 3.5 minutes per visit. Prediction: all three of those metrics will stay flat (plus or minus 10 percent) during 2011. The other way to look at it is: Where are Americans getting their news? The Pew Research Center looks at this on an annual basis, and in 2010 showed online, radio, and newspapers more or less tied as news sources for Americans. Is there any doubt where this is going? In 2011, Pew might add mobile as a distinct source, but it will show online clearly ahead of newspapers and radio, with mobile ascendant.

Newspaper chains. Nobody can afford to buy anybody else, and no non-newspaper companies want to buy newspapers. There might be some mergers, but really, there are no strategic opportunities for consolidation in this industry, because there are no major efficiencies or revenue opportunities to be gained. Everybody will just muddle along in 2011, with the exception of Journal Register, which as noted above will move into adjacent markets with digital products and generally show the way the rest should follow.

Stocks. The major indices will be up 15 to 20 percent by September, but they’ll drop back to a break-even position by the end of 2011. Newspaper stocks will not beat the market. Others: AOL and Google will beat the market; Yahoo and Microsoft will not.

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.

May 04 2010

14:00

Moderating declines: Parsing the NAA’s spin on newspaper circ data

Newspapers could borrow a line from a recent Dilbert comic strip: “We’ve been doing great since we redefined success as a slowing of failure.” Or perhaps it was the other way around, and Dilbert creator Scott Adams was inspired to write that line in a recent strip by the inventive terminology of newspaper executives describing “sequential improvement” and “moderating declines” in their revenue trends despite continuing losses in the double digit range.

Currently, the industry is reporting first-quarter earnings, and last week the Audit Bureau of Circulations released unaudited “publisher’s statements” reporting paid circulation for the six months ending March 31. The numbers are down, but the spin is up.

On the circulation front, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that circulation fell 8.7 percent on weekdays and 6.5 percent on Sundays, among newspapers filing publisher’s statements. This compares with drops of 10.6 percent weekdays and 7.6 percent Sundays for the prior six-month period, enough of an improvement for Newspaper Association of America CEO John Sturm to declare that “the data indicates the declines are moderating.”

Actually, it’s hard to discern real moderation in the rate of decline. The losses in the most recent period are indeed a bit less severe than those in the prior (Sept. 30) period, but they are worse than the drop in the period before that, or in any previous period. If we ignore the Sept. 30 data as an outlier, we actually have a trend that’s been worsening steadily for the last six years:

Nothing about that final uptick indicates that it’s a reversal of the trend — it would take two or three periods of “improvement” in the form of “moderating declines” to make that a valid conclusion. In fact, both of the upticks in the trendline disappear if we take the statistically reasonable step of averaging spring and fall six-month circulation changes into annual figures and graphing those:

Moreover, viewed in long-term context, this latest minor slowdown in the rate of decline disappears entirely when newspaper circulation is viewed in the context of population: Since 1945, the number of papers sold per 100 households has dropped steadily, declining in 61 of the last 64 years.

(The circulation numbers on which this chart is based come from Editor & Publisher via NAA; E&P hasn’t released its Yearbook with a 2009 figure, so 2009 is my estimate based on the last two ABC cycles and estimated census households.)

It’s also quite possible that the uptick is entirely the result of some of the new options newspapers have in counting their circulation. Some of the declines of the past few years have come from ditching distribution in unprofitable outlying areas, and cutting back on “third-party” programs in which advertisers were persuaded to pay for bulk distribution, free to recipients, at community events or door-to-door in targeted areas. The value of this circulation was always questionable, but now ABC rules are permitting substitution of new forms of questionable circulation.

Take, for instance, the Bend (Ore.) Bulletin, where weekday circulation grew 34.3 percent. How? Since Jan. 1, with ABC approval, the paper has been counting e-subscriptions sold to current print subscribers for an extra 50 cents per month. As long as the subscriber can choose to opt in or out of the added digital subscription, the e-subscription counts as one paid subscription in addition to the printed one, even if the customer never accesses it. Applying this stratagem for only three months of six-month reporting period, the Bulletin tacked 12,462 weekday e-subs to its “core” print circulation of 29,072 (which is actually down by more than 1,000 from 30,155 a year ago). And next time around, counting the e-subs for six full months, it expects to report circulation of about 54,000.

How much of that is going on, and to what extent is it responsible for that uptick? I haven’t delved into the data, but Paid Content did, and reported that e-edition circulation was up significantly: the digital editions of the top 25 newspaper e-editions rose 40 percent, from to 1,363,212, versus 973,721 a year earlier.

There’s are other questionable figures being circulated, as well. In his statement on the ABC data, Sturm also cited readers-per-copy data that appears, at first glance, to mitigate the downward trend in copies sold: “Newspaper print products are also finding their way into more people’s hands, with readers-per-copy increasing by 7.5 percent in just the last three years to 3.3 adults on average, according to a recent analysis from Scarborough Research and Newspaper National Network LLP.” Here’s the graph:

Missing from this statement is the important qualifying statement that the Scarborough study applies to 25 selected “top markets,” not to all newspapers.

For its report (PDF download), Scarborough chose the 25 largest newspapers omitting “national” newspapers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today), as well as omitting papers in the midst of major circulation pattern transitions (Denver Post, Detroit Free Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Jose Mercury-News, Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

In response to email inquiries, NAA’s research director Jim Conaghan and communications chief Jeff Sigmund defended Sturm’s statement. “He correctly cites the Scarborough research,” Conaghan wrote. “John Sturm’s statement references research conducted by Scarborough which was based on an analysis of the top 25 markets,” Sigmund wrote. But Sturm’s statement leaves out the important qualifier of the 25 markets. Conaghan also wrote to me: “You need to carefully read what is contained in the Scarborough report. Large markets/papers, survey data. The old NAA estimates were derived by a different method, and would represent total U.S.” By “old NAA estimates” he meant a 2007 report available at the NAA site that found 2.128 readers per copy weekdays and 2.477 on Sunday. (That study, in a footnote, discounts the validity of the Sunday number, stating: “Projection relatively unstable for Sunday RPC. Use with caution.”

Now, as that quote suggests, readers-per-copy (a.k.a. the “pass-along rate”) is a notoriously difficult thing to measure. But it has been tracked by Scarborough and others for a very long time and has been pretty consistently cited (and drilled into the heads of newspaper advertising representatives) as being around 2.3, plus or minus a point or two. This allowed salespeople for a 30,000-circulation newspaper to tell retailers that readership was actually about 75,000. The readers-per-copy factoid was included for years in NAA’s own “Facts About Newspapers,” a vest-pocket sized booklet of data distributed annually to advertisers and publishers. In 2000, Facts About Newspapers claimed 2.1 readers per copy, and 2.2 on Sundays. In 2004, it was 2.3 on weekdays, 2.4 on Sundays. In 2007, as cited above, it was 2.1 weekdays and (with a grain of salt in the NAA footnote) 2.5 on Sundays. When I started in the business, in the late 1970s, I recall that it was 2.6. In 1983, Scarborough and Simmons both came up with about 2.7, but that was noted as seeming to be on the high side. The average U.S. household is about 2.57 people, another reason why any reader-per-copy finding above that level is questionable. I think Conaghan is right on the money to say that Sturm’s claim of 3.3 can not be applied to any markets outside the those selected 25 and that reality is still in range of 2.2 to 2.5 as it has been for 50 years.

Sturm also pointed to the online newspaper audience, stating: “The latest Nielsen Online data found that newspaper websites attracted a record 74.4 million unique visitors per month on average in the first quarter of 2010 — more than one-third (37 percent) of all Internet users.” Left unsaid: the monthly UV average for this quarter was probably boosted in February by traffic related to the Olympics. The February UV count was 76.1 million, an all-time high. In March, with 10 percent more days than February, UV’s were 5 percent lower at 72.1 million.

But everyone knows by now that UVs are not a very good indicator, and “time spent on site” is what counts, at least if you’re trying to sell advertising. By that score, Q1 did not shape up very well for newspapers: in January, the average visitor spent 33:09 minutes at newspaper sites, in February, 29:06 minutes, and in March 32.21 minutes. These are three of the four shortest attention spans recorded by Nielsen Online for NAA since January 2004 (with the caveat that data before June 2009, which showed significantly higher times spent, was based on a different survey sample and can’t be compared with later stats).

Here’s the trend line for attention, or time spent, at newspaper websites since the June 2009 methodology change.

When that trend starts to demonstrate clear and strong “sequential improvement,” newspapers will have something to shout from the rooftops.

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