A scary picture

LA Times has lost a couple hundred thousand circulation while its market has grown buy nearly five million people

 

Idaho:

On a percentage basis, is that really any different than anywhere else?

Don't know, just asking ...

 

Probably not. I don't know for sure, either. It's scary for the industry, not just one newspaper.

That said, I'm not sure how that graphic illustrates the possible growth of suburban papers, niche publications, spanish newspapers, etc. All I know is it says the LA metro area has added five million new people but the 'voice' of the area is being heard by fewer and fewer people.

My paper, IIRC, has added a few thousands readers in the last couple of years.

 

my first thought was "why did he move the Babs thread to this board..."

 

mine, too. ;D ;D ;D

 

Illegal immigrants use their 50 cents for something other than buying the LAT...

 

It's obviously a bad trend ... no denying it.

Just by way of explanation, though, note that one of the things that happened during this time was a huge rollback in both the Orange County and Valley editions. They went from fully staffed, independent operations that combined with the main paper to put out a couple of the best suburban editions of any major metro in the country to shells of that, ceding OC to the Register for the most part (there was still Orange County coverage, but nothing like it was).

So that accounts for some of that loss aside from regular attrition.

Still, no good in the numbers.

 

I'd like to know what's happened in the same span to circ at the Daily News, Long Beach, Daily Breeze, Orange County, Ventura County, etc.

And what has the LAT's Web traffic been like over the last 10 years? I'm not sure there are fewer people wanting information -- regardless of how it's presented.

 

You can look at this number in many, many ways and it's not necessarily all that scary. I also would like to know the circulation at the Daily News, Long Beach, OC, etc.

The glass is half full view sees the emergence and importance of local coverage at suburban papers and websites as opposed to hoping the LA Times finds a half-inch to enter a graph about an important local vote, let alone a local football box score. Why do we feel the necessity to put the LA Times on the high perch it sits.

What is its web-traffic?

The times are changing and it's a beautiful thing.

 

Very good points...but the negative offshoot in sports, for example, is going to be more local, less travel.

 

Maybe it's because I've always been a "newspaper guy," but it just astonishes me how few people take the paper.

I can't for the life of me think of a better bargain than a daily metropolitan newspaper. Heck, spend a half-hour looking out for coupons, and you wind up coming out ahead.

You can get seven days of The Miami Herald for $2.

That same $2 will buy you half a cup at Starbucks or one-third of a cup of warm horse piss at Yankee Stadium.

 

I stopped when I moved into my own apartment and didn't have one for a few months. Saved time during the day, but not good otherwise.

Kids renewed my subscription for Father's Day, and I wouldn't be without anymore.