Monday, October 26, 2009

Daily circulation numbers open thread

The Audit Bureau of Circulations will release newspaper circulation numbers today.

I'll be tracking developments at the Charlotte Observer, the Raleigh News & Observer, the Miami Herald, the Kansas City Star, and, the Sacramento Bee.

Be aware: if today's release is like previous ones, the information will dribble out slowly.

I'll be posting available info on McClatchy newspapers later this morning. As it happens I will be offline a short time this morning due to some other obligations... if you have info on any McClatchy papers, post it in comments. I'll have circulation posts for you later this morning.
.
.
.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, the top 25 paid circulation papers numbers have been released and McClatchy doesn't even have a newspaper in the top 25! What a global giant in the publishing world.

Anonymous said...

Editor & Publisher is releasing figures. Here's one to gladden the heart. From the liberal bastion of dysfunction:

The San Francisco Chronicle lost more than a quarter of its daily circ, down 25.8% to 251,782. Sunday was off more than 22% to 306,705.

Anonymous said...

Miami takes up up the arse:

"The Miami Herald reported a daily circ decline of 23% to 162,260. Sunday fell 14.6% to 238,613."

These are some horrific figures.

Anonymous said...

Some more encouraging news is that the Wall Street Journal is now the No. 1 circ paper in America, passing USA Today. Way to go Mr. Murdoch!

Anonymous said...

The layoff numbers are going to be astounding in the next couple of months. These management morons will be forced to shift to exclusively online delivery in order to save their butts.

Anonymous said...

Anybody see anything on Sac or Fresno?

Anonymous said...

Not one of Top 25 showed an increase. Every one was down and many were down in double figures. Can an industry implode any faster? The spin has to start now.

Anonymous said...

I can't tell you how funny this list is to me. The USA Today which is given away, as in free, in front of seemingly every hotel room in the country is down 17%.
Now, who exactly is paying for it?

I think based on these figures you can kiss the following papers goodbye in 2010; Boston Globe, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle and Newark Star-Ledger.

You simply cannot continue to offer annual advertising rates when your base is down 25%. No advertiser would pay for that kind of non-performance.

Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal grows. Now, just how can that be?

How can the one conservative leaning newspaper grow while the rest of the communist leaning newspapers.... oh never mind.

We've been telling them the business model for success for 20 years, they know best.

Anonymous said...

Yup, the Wall Street Journal was actually UP in paid circ! Conservatives read papers and buy stuff, libs only buy if the government is giving them a free handout and many of them can't read English.

Anonymous said...

NY Times falls under 1 million for the first time in years.

Anonymous said...

Advertisers may actually dump print ads for online ads after looking at these pathetic results. That would speed up the transition and end the suffering for a lot of scared print journalists. If you can't see your industry going down in flames you don't deserve to work as a reporter. Get out now!

Anonymous said...

KC Star circ numbers anyone????

Anonymous said...

Online Rally May Sidestep Newspapers (nytimes.com)

snip

Ad buyers are not convinced of the power of high-end sites, either.

“They’ll tend to go for something that’s less expensive, because there’s not a lot of proof in the marketplace at this point that what one would call premium inventory — and you could put some newspaper advertising into that category — actually performs better,” said Adam Kasper, director of digital media for Havas Digital’s Media Contacts, which handles advertising for clients like Volvo.

Newspaper sites work well “when you’re talking about a product launch, big announcements,” he said, “but the costs are higher for those bigger, splashier units.”

Anonymous said...

Anecdotal info. from the Sac Bee Distributors is that their numbers are dropping like crazy. Some areas as much as 25%.

Anonymous said...

The delay in McClatchy releasing its circulation numbers may be indicitive of how bad they are. Nothing on the corporate site either.

Anonymous said...

The San Francisco Chronicle's loss shows that liberals in the most liberal U.S. city don't read the most liberal newspaper.

If you can't hold your base, what hope is their for newspapers?

Anonymous said...

SF is a big wired market with a lot of online readership. It's been heavily rumored to be the first large US market to drop print and go all online. Apparently they aren't buying the print version in more ways than one!

Anonymous said...

Libs aren't big processors of news. They talk a good game but don't bother to read or watch news on a daily basis. Many are poor and uneducated. All you have to do is look how the conservative news arms are doing: Fox News, Wall Street Journal, talk radio - all booming. MSNBC, the network newscasts, NY Times, PBS and other lib pubs all in decline.

Anonymous said...

Still nothing from Sacramento. They must be in a big meeting plotting the spin on this disaster. Hey, profits are up!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:44-8:52: BINGO, we have multiple WINNERS!

VS. The McClatchy model: Melanie Sill admits blatant bias in editorial today:

"There's no dispute that The Bee has a liberal editorial page on most issues, though not all matters, and has mostly endorsed Democrats. We won't change our editorial philosophy to placate critics."

Go liberals go...right down the liberal toilet

Anonymous said...

Sill said those amazingly silly words a couple of weeks ago and got skewered by those who actually pay good money to read her paper. Denial is encouraged inside the Bee.

Anonymous said...

McCrappy stock taking a dive. Somebody must have heard something about circ numberz. KC Star anybody?

Anonymous said...

Gary probably doesn't come in until noon so they can't meet and release the circs until he wakes up and cooks up a plan.

Anonymous said...

If you are a person blessed with a degree in English or journalism and an interest in your future, the question today is not how McClatchy stock is doing, the question is how McDonald stock is doing.

Anonymous said...

ANON 9:24 ROFLMAO

Anonymous said...

Corporate Memo: Gary locked his keys in the company limo and won't be in until 1 p.m. or so. We'll meet this afternoon about the circulation figures and release the information thereafter. Everybody please dress in Halloween costume as Gary will be passing out candy bars.

Anonymous said...

LOL at these posts!!!

Anonymous said...

ACORN must have to "certify" McClatchy circulation figures before they're released to the public.

Anonymous said...

Since the record plunge in liberal newspaper circulation has no real precedence, and a circulation control group is needed for perspective, does anyone from McClatchy have at their fingertips the last couple of decades of Pravda and Isvestia statistics?

Anyone? Must be on someones desk with a picture of Stalin on it?

Anonymous said...

According to a company memo dated June 5, 2008 all pictures of Stalin were replaced with pictures of Obama.

Stalin was found to be too conservative.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:16 LMAO!

Anonymous said...

Hey to all you haters out there! I don't care as long as I get my Mao Tunic!


Gary

Anonymous said...

Since you conservative cats know the correct business model, let's see you support conservative papers nationwide... instead of just one: the WSJ.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

There's more than one conservative newspaper???

Anonymous said...

Gary's Halloween party invitations state: "Please dress as Mao, Hugo Chavez, Fidel or Obama. No other constumes will be admitted. Thanks all!"

Anonymous said...

Since you conservative cats know the correct business model, let's see you support conservative papers nationwide... instead of just one: the WSJ.

==============

First off, the WSJ isn't conservative. It simply allows for some conservative editorial. As far as it's news goes, it is one of the more liberal papers out there.

Secondly, it doesn't take a conservative to know that alienating 50% or more of your potential audience is bad business. You know it, just like McClatchy knows it. It is a formula for failure and it is intentional. The only explanation is that your paper is counting on becoming a governmental extension. I hope you fail miserably before that can happen.

Anonymous said...

Howard snatched that ripcord just in time, didn't he?

Walter Abbott

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:50: I believe you answered your own question as to why the FOX business model is so successful.

One conservative station in a sea of liberal stations, means that the conservative one should get more attention.

Since McClatchy’s form of DNC liberalism is just as good as the San Francisco Chronicle's, what’s the difference? Not much.

How many times can you read from a one sided paper every day that, “Dear Leader is the Coolest Cat”, that buying a car from “GM’s GubMint Motors” is way cool, or that “Socialized Medicine for illegal alians” is the coolest!

Anonymous said...

Guys, newspapers are dying because of the internet. If they were dying because of liberal bias, they would've died in the 1980s.

Sorry to poop on your party.

McClatchy Watch said...

Walter 11:12 - Howard is laughing and Twittering all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

Youse guys talkin bout Howard Weaver? Wadda wanker.

Anonymous said...

12:55 you just keep believing that and make sure you explain your theory to your 22 year old zit faced manager at McDonalds when you are in their "management training" class.

Anonymous said...

MCClatchy may decided not to release these awful circulation figures. Since they don't have a top 25 paper, the others may avoid being mentioned in industry stories. I wouldn't want to publicize the wreckage. Would you? Somebody needs to do some real reporting and fact-checking to get the paid circ figures for KC, Sac, Fresno, etc.

Anonymous said...

Editor and Publisher should link to the entire list of newspapers. What's the holdup?

Anonymous said...

anon 1:21 LMAO

TruthHurts001 said...

"Guys, newspapers are dying because of the internet."

You're almost correct.

Newspapers are dying because the mainstream liberal media no longer has a monopoly on the news. This is largely due to the internet and Fox News, neither of which existed in the 1980's.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Anonymous said...

"Newspapers are dying because the mainstream liberal media no longer has a monopoly on the news. This is largely due to the internet and Fox News, neither of which existed in the 1980's."

Absolutely true in regards to the Internet, not so much when it comes to FoxNews. Their audience just isn't big enough to account for the type of enormous declines we're seeing in print circulation.

Personally I don't think it has anything to do with ideology at all - Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates and Don't Care Anyways are all abandoning newspapers for the 'net for myriad reasons, the main one being that it's free.

Anonymous said...

Will the smell of fry grease stay on my clothes longer than the smell of newsprint ink?

Anonymous said...

1:48, If Fox News and conservative internet sites/blogs have killed newspapers because they're liberal, then the next media outlets to go will be CNN, MSNBC, CBS and all the other "liberal" media you guys complain about here.

I'll hold my breath waiting for them to die. Not.

Anonymous said...

No they are abandoning news papers because they are not getting news. People, through alternative media, have discovered that the main stream media does not report news. They report image and context as it relates to the liberal narrative.

Anonymous said...

CNN has dropped to fourth among cable news channels in October viewership. NYTimes reported the decline today. Fox News kicking everybody's asses times four or five.

TruthHurts001 said...

"If Fox News and conservative internet sites/blogs have killed newspapers because they're liberal, then the next media outlets to go will be CNN, MSNBC, CBS"

Again, you're almost correct.

CNN, MSNBC, and CBS et al all come into your home as part of the basic cable package, so although their numbers are indeed abysmal and getting worse, they'll probably be able to cling to life. If, like newspapers, they had to be purchased by subscription, they'd also be on their way to the morgue.

I'm fairly certain you already understand this, it's not rocket science...you just don't want to admit it.

TruthHurts001 said...

"Absolutely true in regards to the Internet, not so much when it comes to FoxNews. Their audience just isn't big enough to account for the type of enormous declines we're seeing in print circulation."

Agreed 100%.

I only mentioned Fox as a further illustration of an alternative to the conventional MSM.

Anonymous said...

Truth: If the demand for what Fox does was significant, there would be more than one conservative channel. That's capitalism 101.

This is the same principal behind the one paper that allows conservative views, the WSJ.

Anonymous said...

Wall Street Journal now has more than twice as many subscribers as the liberal Bible - NY Times.

TruthHurts001 said...

"Truth: If the demand for what Fox does was significant, there would be more than one conservative channel. That's capitalism 101."

Well then, perhaps demand for what Fox does is not significant, it's a matter of opinion. I'm fairly certain that a substantive argument can be made that Fox's ratings are compelling evidence that demand IS significant.

Also, the failure of Fox's rivals to improve their product in order to compete with Fox is highly suggestive of their inability to grasp the principles of Capitalism 101.

Anonymous said...

Truth... it is not so much a matter of not understanding the basics of capitalism 101, it is that they completely reject the principle of capitalism. Their hero Obama is 100% anti-capitalist and they lick the cloud he walks on.

One would think that any reasonable person could figure out that if Obama sat and listened to Rev. Wright for 25 years, got married by him and had his kids baptized by him that he agreed with the fundamental hate America, hate Whitey, hate capitalism black theology Wright espoused.

But no, they were too blinded by the opportunity to prove they were not racists by supporting a candidate for no other reason than his race. Amazing.