ABC - March 2009

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003966608

USA TODAY -- 2,113,725 – (-7.46%)
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 2,082,189 -- 0.61%
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- 1,039,031 -- (-3.55%)
LOS ANGELES TIMES -- 723,181 -- (-6.55%)
THE WASHINGTON POST -- 665,383 -- (-1.16%)

DAILY NEWS (NEW YORK) -- 602,857 -- (-14.26%)
NEW YORK POST -- 558,140 -- (-20.55%)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- 501,202 -- (-7.47%)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE -- 425,138 -- (-13.96%)
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 389,701 -- (-5.72%)

THE DENVER POST (02/28/2009 to 03/31/2009) -- 371,728 -- N/A
NEWSDAY -- 368,194 -- (-3.01%)
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 331,907 -- (-9.88%)
STAR-TRIBUNE, MINNEAPOLIS -- 320,076 -- (-0.71%)
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES -- 312,141 -- (-0.04%)

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE -- 312,118 -- (-15.72%)
THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 302,638 -- (-13.68%)
THE PLAIN DEALER, CLEVELAND -- 291,630 -- (-11.70%)
DETROIT FREE PRESS -- 290,730 -- (-5.90%)
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER -- 288,298 -- (-13.72%)

THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK, N.J. -- 287,082 -- (-16.82%)
ST. PETERSBURG (FLA.) TIMES -- 283,093 -- (-10.42%)
THE OREGONIAN, PORTLAND -- 268,512 -- (-11.76%)
THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION -- 261,828 -- (-19.91%)
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE -- 261,253 -- (-9.53%)

 

Translation ... Let's all go work for the WSJ!

But seriously ... That is a TON of double-digit percentage losses. I would be interested to see how my former stops fared as well.

RB

 

The AJC has lost almost 20 percent? Wow.

 

That's flat-out scary.

 

Counterpoint: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2009/04/27/news-circ-down-10-why-thats-good/

Summary: Getting rid of junk circulation in outlying areas that is less valuable to advertisers, while raising the price of the publication, is actually a good idea.

Discuss.

 

Always good when the lucky papers are the ones seeing less than 10 percent hits in circulation. Honestly, I would have thought the numbers would be worse -- if you told me six of the largest 15 papers had taken less than a 5 percent hit, I would be surprised.

 

It shouldn't surprise anyone considering what has been done to that newsroom.

Deliver less of a product and fewer people are going to want it, no?

 

Yeah, that's the first thing I looked for and noticed. Ugh.

On the (slightly) bright side, the Sun-Times looks steady. And the NYT and WaPo might just look at their drops as acceptable, given what's happening around them.

 

Of course. Smaller product, narrow focus, reduced staff, loss of recognizable writers and increased prices ... bravo!

 

So next year they marginalize 10% more of their readers by jacking up prices while slashing the product. Lather, rinse, repeat. Sounds like a winning business strategy to me. Not.

 

That's "good" in the same sense that cutting off a gangrenous limb is good. Yes, it had to be done given the circumstances, but the circumstances suck donkey balls.

 

Raising the price is good.

A candy bar costs $1.00 why should a newspaper be 35 cents