The Web Effect: New Tally Reveals True Newspaper Reach

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Web Effect: New Tally Reveals True Newspaper Reach
By Jennifer Saba
Published: October 04, 2005 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK The Newspaper Audience Database (NADbase) unveiled this week shows the industry is getting serious about pushing readership as a way to complement paid circulation. The Newspaper Association of America, which is spearheading this twice-yearly release, calculates a newspaper's total reach by combining print and unduplicated online readers.

The NAA uses data from Scarborough Research, Nielsen NetRatings and, in some instances, the Gallup Organization to determine a paper's market footprint.

The NADbase lists the top 100 papers by how many adults have read the print product within seven days or visited the Web within 30 days. What this shows is that many newspapers pick up a significant amount of reach when their Web users, who shun the print product, are counted in the mix.

Top gainers from the Web: The Boston Globe picks up 9%; The Austin American-Statesman and The San Diego Union-Tribune gain roughly 8% each; the San Antonio Express-News, Hartford Courant, Salt Lake Tribune, Las Vegas Journal, and The Arizona Daily Star each gain about seven points.

Here is a list of the top 20 papers that have the most amount of combined reach in their DMAs. The first number is print reach, and the second includes the Web-only readers.

Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, N.Y.): 80.3%; 83.9%

Austin (Texas) American-Statesman: 74.8%, 82.7%

Des Moines (Iowa) Register: 70.1%, 74.6%

Syracuse (N.Y.) Post-Standard: 68.8%, 72.7%

Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch: 66.6%, 72.2%

New Orleans Times-Picayune: 66.3%, 72.1%

San Antonio Express-News: 64.5%, 71.5%

The Washington Post: 64.0%, 71.4%

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: 66.2%, 70.4%

The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky.: 64.7%, 68.7%

The Honolulu Advertiser: 63.9%, 68.0%

The Buffalo (N.Y.) News: 63.7%, 67.5%

The San Diego Union-Tribune: 58.4%, 66.6%

Arizona Daily Star: 59.2%, 66.5%

Las Vegas Review-Journal: 57.9%, 65.6%

The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City: 59.0%, 65.4%

Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch: 61.3%, 65.1%

Cincinnati Enquirer: 58.5%, 64.6%

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: 58.4%, 64.3%

The Kansas City Star: 60.1%, 64.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Saba ([email protected])

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 496 • Replies: 9

No top replies

And so it now becomes clearer why the New York Times is pulling this 'Select' stuff that restricts the average net visitor from viewing certain articles. As the newspapers realize the number of folk looking for free and paid circulation slipping they know there is but one cure...CHARGE 'EM!

Seriously though BBB it does put it more in perspective... any chance that you could link this over to your Times Select post?

0 Replies

I guess I'm still scratching my head over why the NY Times is being criticized for charging for some of its content. If you are trying to sell one version of your product (the print edition, which is sold in most of the U.S.), but giving it away free in other version (on-line), what do you think will happen?

People stop buying the paper. Do you find something insidious about the Times coming to this totally obvious conclusion? Somehow I get the feeling you guys think you've uncovered evidence of a conspiracy...

0 Replies

I cannot speak for others (yeah, who'd-o-thunk it?) but what I see here is a suppression of free speech and open information. The writers at newspapers are paid, the ideas they send off should be available to all people not just a 'Select' group. What happens to those with limited finances who really cannot afford even thirty dollars more per year? It amazes me how people scream about freedom of information and free press and then support newspapers who charge for precisely those items.

0 Replies

I would have thought that they had received an increase in revenue from the advertisers who must surely pay to display their wares on the newspapers' webpage.

0 Replies

Austin American-Statesman at the top of the list? A tad surprising considering the lame-ness of the thing.

They do have good online classifieds, though.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

I cannot speak for others (yeah, who'd-o-thunk it?) but what I see here is a suppression of free speech and open information. The writers at newspapers are paid, the ideas they send off should be available to all people not just a 'Select' group. What happens to those with limited finances who really cannot afford even thirty dollars more per year? It amazes me how people scream about freedom of information and free press and then support newspapers who charge for precisely those items.

A newspaper charging for its product is suppressing free speech? All that statement reveals is a misunderstanding of what free speech really is.

Should I protest against HBO because they want me to pay extra for "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and other shows? Maybe in a socialist country, it would all be free, but in the U.S., we have capitalism. We have to pay for the stuff that businesses make, or they'd go bankrupt...

0 Replies

Quote:

It amazes me how people scream about freedom of information and free press and then support newspapers who charge for precisely those items.

Sturgis- Freedom of information and free press has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting information in newspapers without cost. It refers to an amendment to the Constitution that ensures that the press is not fettered by the government in obtaining and disseminating information.

Quote:

Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

0 Replies

BBB
At some point, the columnists who agreed to the Time's demands will realize that their impact on national and world opinion has been significantly reduced. If they wanted to effect policies they've made the wrong move. Far fewer people are influenced.

The old saw about cutting one's nose off to spite one's face comes to mind.

BBB

0 Replies

Those columnists can choose to take their writings elsewhere once their contracts are up. We'll see how many do....

0 Replies

The Web Effect: New Tally Reveals True Newspaper Reach

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know