Just how bad is it at The New York Post?
The New York Times wrote about The New York Post today. The headline was, “Sober Mood at New York Post as Circulation Spirals Lower.”
“Nearly every paper in America has lost circulation, but The Post more than most,” Richard Perez-Pena wrote.
Not really.
Since 2004, The Post has done a little better than most of the top 25 newspapers in circulation from that year.
If we look at just the three New York papers, we can see that their circulation trends are roughly the same.
The daily circulation decline at The Post was sharper in the last year than for The Times or The Daily News, but only because The Post did relatively better than those two papers the previous two years.
There may be other reasons for singling out The Post for a tale of woe, but circulation isn’t one of them.
2 comments:
Here's the piece you're missing:
"three-quarters of The Post’s circulation is single-copy sales"
That's a huge number, and no slice of the circulation pie is more volatile that single-copy sales.
Also, a large portion of the overall circulation decline is attributable to publishers purposely hacking away unprofitable paid circulation (read: home deliver subscribers). I think the point being made here is that that makes the Post's decline even more dramatic.
My only point was to show that the assertion that The Post's circulation losses were "more than most" doesn't hold up. It may be that circulation losses are a more serious issue for The Post than for other newspapers because it relies far more on single-copy sales, but to me that point was more implied than clearly expressed in the article, and I have no quarrel with it because I don't know.
Post a Comment