NYT digital circulation (not just online traffic) exceeds print

One of many interesting takeaways from the latest figures:

http://accessabc.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/the-top-u-s-newspapers-for-march-2012/

Maybe the Times has figured it out?

 

They're still giving it away, right?

 

They cut from 20 stories a month to 10 before requiring payment or blocking you, although the NYT site says you can still access stories through some social media links.

I choose my 10 stories judiciously and buy off the rack occasionally. I have it on my Nook but don't enjoy reading it on there because it's a pain in the ass. If they provided same-day home delivery for the print version in my area I'd probably subscribe.

 

Exactly the same boat for me. Got my 10-story notice last night (April 30) and so I just put aside the story I wanted to read until this morning. If all the folks like us are part of the digital numbers, I put very little stock in them. I will be impressed if the numbers of paid subscriptions are promising, but I haven't seen those.

 

I blew through my 10 stories last month, and was very close to buying a subscription. I know a handful of friends who have bought subscriptions. I actually kind of like the model. Side note, I think the Sentinel papers are on a pretty similar system now. Maybe I missed the thread on that.

 

I honestly think this is good news for the industry. The problem with online has always been finding a way to really make it profitable and the NYT has always had a good subscription model (even though I'm kind of anti-subscriptions for online, I do understand it).

 

I'm not sure I agree. The NYT has a national - no, world-wide - appeal. Other papers, as expected, are following the NYT's path like lemmings. But no one can expect the same results (same deal with WSJ) because the NYT is so different from any other paper. Maybe the WaPo could get away with the same. Hard to imagine any others in the U.S.

 

Two papers I've worked for in the past have recently started pay walls. They also do the first however many stories free, generally 15 or 20, and then you have to pay. But it's so easy to get to each paper's content without paying that I don't know why anyone would. It's pretty much as simple as using a different browser. I've heard clearing out cookies works. Or browsing in private. The also hold mobile devices to a different standard.

So until they fix those issues I don't think it matters that they are pay per view. If the loopholes ever do close, I have a hard time believing many people will pony up for the small local rag. The NYT is on a whole other level.

 

Another interesting tidbit from those figures:

The Chicago Sun-Times has edged ahead of the Chicago Tribune in average daily "circulation" figures, counting all formats.

Here's the top 10, with total average circulation on 3/31/12 listed first, then total average circulation on 3/31/11, then percent change in the past year:

(my apologies for the tab misadventure ... SportsJournalists.com just doesn't do tabs very well)

 

Your circulation, particularly in battles such as the New York Post vs. Daily News and the Chicago Sun-Times vs. Chicago Tribune, is a measure of how many newspapers you decide to print. The Sun-Times likely increased its numbers when it realized it could pass the Tribune. Now, its advertising representatives can tell advertisers that the Sun-Times is Chicago's most-read newspaper while the honest declaration is, "We print more copies than the Tribune, but we have no idea who's reading what."