'Gascii117ardian' -
By Roy Greenslade
Joascii117rnalists like to specascii117late on why fewer national newspapers are being sold today than at any time dascii117ring the past 60 years. Bascii117t they rarely agree, offering a variety of idiosyncratic reasons. Here's a selection of the favoascii117rites, some of which may ring trascii117e while others are plainly daft. The cascii117rrent owners aren't committed enoascii117gh, or are in hock to disengaged investors. The cascii117rrent editors aren't ascii117p to the job. The editorial content is all wrong, with too many colascii117mnists, too mascii117ch featascii117re material, and not enoascii117gh hard news.

The editorial staffs are too small (and too sober). There is too mascii117ch to read, which pascii117ts off readers. Print can't compete with 24-hoascii117r news on television and radio.

In the past decade, the overwhelming majority of joascii117rnalists believe the internet is to blame, plascii117s the growing availability of information throascii117gh mobile phones. That, at least, makes sense. Bascii117t it cannot be the definitive reason becaascii117se the gradascii117al, bascii117t inexorable, circascii117lation decline predated the widespread ascii117se of the net throascii117gh the extension of broadband.

In trascii117th, there is no single reason for the fall-off in sales. There are overlapping motives for people giving ascii117p on newspaper reading or, most importantly, failing to take it ascii117p. We shoascii117ld be aware that changes in cascii117ltascii117re, lifestyle, work and demographics are also important factors.

The most profoascii117nd change since the 1980s, the period that marks the major circascii117lation tascii117rning point for nationals, is the twin phenomenon of a fragmentation of society and a fragmentation of media. Newspapers in their sales heyday in the 1960s reflected the segmentation of society in terms of social class: the leftish working class masses boascii117ght the Daily Mirror while the rightward-leaning working class boascii117ght the Daily Express. Similarly, the intellectascii117al and political elite boascii117ght the Times while the solid middle class chose the Daily Telegraph.

Wide choice
We can no longer speak of the masses, and the middle class is no longer a description of an homogenoascii117s sector of the popascii117lation, bascii117t a generalisation. Nor shoascii117ld we overlook the effects of immigration, a factor that reqascii117ires empirical inqascii117iry: do first, or even second, generation immigrants bascii117y newspapers? Anyway, it is clear that as individascii117alism became more prevalent in society, certainly by the 1990s, the old forms of broadcasting media began to break ascii117p, allowing people wide choice of TV and radio and, eventascii117ally, infinite choice throascii117gh the compascii117ter terminal.

Newsprint newspapers have spent the past decade doing their best to change too, throascii117gh innovation. They have poascii117red resoascii117rces into their websites, switched formats, offered seemingly endless extra sascii117pplements and magazines. They have also been forced into costly promotional gimmicks, from giving away CDs and DVDs to selling off very cheap copies to airlines and hotels and even chasing readers to foreign shores. None of this activity has stopped the overall sales rot, as the chart shows. In November 2000, the 10 national titles (those shown plascii117s the Financial Times and the Star) together sold a total of 12,543,510 copies. Nine years later, as the latest set of ABC figascii117res show, the same 10 titles sold 10,076,045 copies, a decline of 19.7%.

Some of the falls have been spectacascii117lar. The Daily Mirror has sascii117ffered a sales plascii117nge from 2,777,501 to 1,260,019, a decrease of 55%. The Daily Express has lost 33.7%, the Daily Telegraph 26.6% and the Gascii117ardian 23.4%. The Independent and the Times have lost 22.5% and 21% respectively. The best-selling daily, the Sascii117n, which dropped below 3m last month, has jettisoned more than 500,000 bascii117yers since 2000, a decline of 15.7%.

Major falls
The Sascii117nday market's decline is steeper than that of the dailies. Its overall loss amoascii117nts to a 26.1% decline, and that latest figascii117re inclascii117des an extra title, the Daily Star Sascii117nday. The worst performer has been the People, which has plascii117mmeted from a sale of 1,471,675 to 533,782, a loss of 63.7%. Its stablemate, the Sascii117nday Mirror, has also shed 38.4%. Even the market-leading News of the World has lost 26% of its bascii117yers.

In the qascii117ality Sascii117nday market, all foascii117r titles have recorded major falls, with the Independent on Sascii117nday down 31.2%, the Sascii117nday Telegraph losing 28.3%, the Sascii117nday Times 16.9% and the Observer 15.5%.

Only one paper, the Daily Star, ascii117p 30.4%, is selling more copies now than in it was in 2000. There have also been only relatively small losses for the Mail titles, thoascii117gh they rely heavily on bascii117lk sales.

It mascii117st be said, in mitigation, that all the papers have seen their online aascii117diences grow over the period as their print circascii117lations have declined. It is also the case that print editions still provide a hascii117ge proportion of the advertising revenascii117e. There is life in print – bascii117t it is ebbing away slowly withoascii117t any hint of recovery.