ABC Fas-Fax report shows growth of e-editions; lose advantage of circulation certainty in new reporting rules

There was once a time when a sales rep reporting their newspaper's circulation could proudly proclaim, with smug superiority, that they reached X number of paid subscribers, and none of their competition could quote their audience with the same authority. The rep would then slap that ABC audit on the customers desk and know that they were in a strong position.

With print circulation numbers continuing to fall, and with the rise of the e-edition within ABC rules, the role of the sales representative has changed dramatically.

Two stories show the dramatically changing landscape of newspaper sales:

S.F. Chronicle circulation drops 22 percent -- The Bay Area has always been a strange place for newspapers, a cosmopolitan community known for its highly educated work force, its ties to Silicon Valley, San Francisco has been home to two of the worst dailies for years -- de Young's Chronicle and Hearst's Examiner. Until Dean Singleton took it over, the San Jose Mercury News was head and shoulders the best paper in the industry (though, to be fair, the paper was declining before Singleton's purchase in 2006 via McClatchy).

---

← The evolving newspaper audit: from certainly to ambiguity

---

Now the Chronicle's reporting a 22 percent drop in paid circulation, down to 241,330. (When Hearst took over the Chronicle it proudly reported that the paper had a circulation of 457,028.)

paidContent.org has compiled a nice chart showing the showing the Top 25 daily newspapers by e-editions. Topping the list by a wide margin is the Wall Street Journal with 414,025 e-edition subscribers. One would think that the move to e-edition reporting would be a boon for publishers trying to cut print runs and costs, but the problems start to show themselves when one looks at the new ABC audit report format.

---

The old reports were a masterful example of minimalism -- here is our circulation, its audited, and you can count on it.  Now, the report offers advertisers a confusing picture of a newspapers audience as the ABC tries to both accurately reflect reach while satisfying the needs of its members.

Is this a criticism -- I know it sounds like it -- but it is not. The reality of today's media market is that products reach their audiences through many means, and mobile media will only complicate this more. So the ABC is making adjustments, and rightly so.

Read More >

Police seize Gizmodo editor's computers in raid related to iPhone 4G affair

Is this all going a bit too far? I don't know, but it is getting serious for tech site Gizmodo and their editor Jason Chen.

According to Gizmodo, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Jason Chen's home on Friday night and removed four computers and two servers. Gizmodo does not say why they are only now reporting on the incident. Gizmodo is owned by Gawker Media which has filed an objection to the police department's actions and requested that the taken property be returned.

The police action stems from articles Gizmodo posted last week purported to be a look at Apple's next generation iPhone. The phone, which the site claimed was lost at a bar in Redwood City, ended up being the center of numerous articles supporting or rejecting the premise that this phone was the real deal. Most ended up believing it is, and Apple's attorney Bruce Sewell eventually wrote Gizmodo's editorial director a very short letter stating that Apple wanted it back. "It has come to our attention that Gizmodo is currently in possession of a device that belongs to Apple. This letter constitutes a formal request that you return the device to Apple." The iPhone was returned.

Complicating things for Gizmodo is the revelation that the site paid $5000 to get its hands on the iPhone -- opening it up to charges that the media property was buying stolen property. Nick Denton, head of Gawker Media tweeted to defend the acquisition: "Does Gizmodo pay for exclusives? Too right!"

Worcester Telegram is raise its paywall this summer; paid print subscribers will continue to get free access; metered approach for other web users

The New York Times Company owned Worchester Telegram & Gazette announced yesterday that it will raise its paywall this summer, allowing its paid print subscribers to continue to have full access to its website, while creating a metered paywall for all other website users.

In the Sunday column penned by Jacqueline Reis, the paper said that pricing and "threshold" (that point in which the user must start paying for access) had yet to be determined. The paper promises to keep breaking news, wire service stories, obituaries, classified ads, local blogs, photo galleries and videos free. (Which leaves what? Columns? This sounds like the failed Times Select approach, doesn't it?)

“We view this as a way to recognize the value of local news and expect the traffic will continue on the site, because so much of what we're offering … is free and not blocked by anything,” Publisher Bruce Gaultney is quoted as stating.

The Massachusetts newspaper had previously charged for web access from July 2002 to July 2006 before giving up on the experiment. Gaultney claims that the new metered paywall was not the result of pressure from the parent company.

The newspaper claimed it had more than 800,000 unique users in March. Print circulation stands at 71,000 daily and 81,000 on Sunday. The paper does not appear to offer any mobile apps at this point.

Patch advertising for editors for the Chicago market

Would you define this as "ironic"? AOL backed Patch is obviously entering the Chicago market, advertising for editors for Chicago, Libertyville, Grayslake and other locations. They are doing it through Editor & Publisher, though. (If you don't see the irony there, well, never mind.)

I must admit I still don't see it -- Patch's business model, that is. Clearly they are building a network and want to sell the network, right? Yet when do they plan to start down this path? This build it now, monetize it later approach, seems awfully late nineties to me -- and that didn't turn out too well if I recall.

Chitika Labs puts iPad sales over 1 million

Chitika Labs, which attempts to track the number of iPads in the wild by counting the number coming through the Chitika ad network, now estimates that there are over one million iPads currently being used.

Chitika's estimates have always been higher than the official numbers coming from Apple, so I would not bet the farm that these numbers are accurate, but their estimates do seem to indicate that iPad sales remain strong as Apple prepares to start shipping its 3G models for delivery April 30.

Back on April 5 when Chitika first launched their iPad sales monitor, the company reported that there were 270,000 iPads "live" -- that is, that number of iPads being used to surf the Internet, and therefore trackable through cookies. The estimate of the number of iPads sold on April 3, the launch date, was around 300,000, so this number seemed about right. A few days later Chitika estimated that there were 700,000 iPads in the wild, but later had to revise that number down when Apple publicly said the number was more like 450,000. That forced Chitika to revise their assumptions concerning how many unique IP addresses the average iPad hits when reaching the company's ad network.

So are there really one million iPads being used in the U.S.? Only Apple knows. But the implications are important when considering whether the tablet publishing market is a fast growing new medium, or simply a distraction. (You know where I stand on that question, right?)

Update: As a former resident of California I find it strangely reassuring that California residents account for so much of the iPad's Internet traffic -- over 19 percent. Obviously the state rankings are heavily influenced simply by population levels (following California are New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois), but the gap between California and second ranked state is enormous.

Murdoch's WSJ strategy for take on Times an old fashioned approach to competing locally

Want to go after a market outside your domaine? Create a regional section. Want to pressure the competition? Drop your prices. These are old, old methods, but what would you expect from the old tabloid king?

Rupert Murdoch's effort to cut the legs out from under the New York Times by going after the local market  offers few new ideas, though that does not mean the effort won't show results. It is very old school to believe that adding a regional section to a paper will attract readers -- the technique has been done of ages, usually with poor results.

---

← The online version of the WSJ's Greater New York section.

---

Whether it is the LA Times creating an Orange County or Valley edition, or Newsday creating a Manhattan edition, the attempt by publishers to broaden their reach and appeal to new regions usually fails as readers realize they are being pandered to. But Murdoch's WSJ has an advantage that it is already part of the city. Especially for those who work in the financial industries, a WSJ with added local content is a good reason to not pick up the Daily News or Post. But is it a good reason not to read the Times? A will losing a few local single copy sales really make a difference in the make-up of the New York newspapers market?

A look at the Greater New York section today and one has to wonder who the real target of the WSJ local efforts are.

---

It's ironic that the NY Post, another of Murdoch's paper, would play along with the boss and offer up its own story -- Times may lose NY ad turf to Wall Street Journal -- oblivious to the fact that what Murdoch is saying here is that the Post just can't cut it as a profitable competitor in New York. So bring the Post to the WSJ.

But before today's launch the real story was, as the Post link above points out, Murdoch's old world price war. For all the talk of paywalls and getting compensated for one's work, the weapons in this print war are the old ones: predatory pricing -- making the other guy hurt by purposely cutting prices below sustainable levels. The Times, at least for now, doesn't seem willing to play along.

"The advertisers are aware of the fact that our audience is 22 million in print and online versus the Journal's 13 (million)," Times president Janet Robinson said recently. "They're well aware of the fact that (45 percent) of Wall Street Journal readers already read The New York Times."

Read More >