This TU story today on newspaper circulation figures says, "For the Times Union, the numbers were a mixed bag." Not really. The partly positive spin is possible because "Sunday circulation grew during the six-month reporting period, to 143,424 from 143,261 a year earlier." OK, that's nice, Sunday circulation is up 163. The Sunday has circulation-boosting gimmicks such as linkages to other weekly newspaper subscriptions, and maybe they're bearing some fruit.
Meanwhile, "the newspaper's Monday-through-Friday circulation decreased to 73,444 in the most recent reporting period, which concluded at the end of September, from 83,496 a year earlier." So, daily circulation is down by more than 10,000. That sounds more like an unqualified disaster than a mixed bag to me, despite the ludicrously positive quote attributed to Publisher George R. Hearst III. It's a lot worse result than at the still sinking Daily Gazette of Schenectady, which "had weekday circulation fall from 47,452 to 45,241 and Sunday circulation drop from 47,766 to 45,357."
And here is a possible explanation.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Whenever a body proposes a tax increase, the paper reports it in percentage terms. But when the TU raised its newsstand price, they talked about how the price was only going up a quarter. No blaring "50% price increase!" headlines. They brag about how Sunday circulation is now at 143,424... funny how they don't phrase it "Sunday circulation up by 0.1%"... let alone "daily circulation down 12%".
Incidentally, I haven't bought the TU at the newstand since I learned of the boycott.
Posted by: Brian | October 29, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Nor have I.
Posted by: Bob Conner | October 29, 2009 at 01:11 PM