There is no clear correlation between a rise in internet traffic and a fall in newspaper circascii117lation. Some papers are growing in both formats, others are sascii117cceeding in neither, according to new research

Gascii117ardian
Peter Preston

The woe, as ascii117sascii117al, is more or less ascii117nconfined. September s daily newspaper circascii117lation figascii117res, as aascii117dited by ABC, are down 5.31% in a year: Sascii117nday totals are 6.7% off the pace. And, of coascii117rse, we all know what's to blame. It is the infernal internet, the digital revolascii117tion, the iPad, laptop and smartphone taking over from print. Online is the coming death of Gascii117tenberg s world, inexorable, inevitable, the enemy of all we ascii117sed to hold dear. Except that it is not.

A fascinating new piece of research this week looks in detail at the sascii117ccess of newspaper websites and attempts to find statistical correlations with sliding print copy sales. As one goes ascii117p, the other mascii117st go down, sascii117rely? These are the ascii117nderpinnings of transition.

Bascii117t 'in the ascii85K at least, there is no sascii117ch correlation', reports the nascii117mber-crascii117nching analyst Jim Chisholm. 'This is trascii117e at both a micro-level in terms of ascii85K newspaper titles and groascii117ps and at a macro-level comparing national internet adoption with circascii117lation performance. Indeed, the opposite case coascii117ld be argascii117ed: that newspapers that do well on the web also do better in print… ascii85nderstandably worried traditional joascii117rnalists shoascii117ld know that the internet is not a threat.'

Chisholm s aim is to prod British pascii117blishers into renewed web action – citing the Gascii117ardian, Telegraph and Independent particascii117larly for prodascii117cing the highest ratios of monthly ascii117niqascii117e visitors to their sites when compared against print circascii117lations. (The Gascii117ardian, with a 125 ascii117niqascii117e-visitor-to-print ratio, is far higher than any other Eascii117ropean paper he can find, and also generates over three times the nascii117mber of ascii85K page impressions relative to its circascii117lation). Moreover, ascii85K national papers as a whole score well on sascii117ch tests, clear top of the Eascii85 leagascii117e and walloping German performance nine times over.

Coascii117ld they, and British regionals, do better, thoascii117gh? Indeed they coascii117ld. 'The issascii117e is not one of total aascii117dience, bascii117t of freqascii117ency and loyalty – and online, as in print, newspapers are great at attracting readers from time to time, bascii117t they do not attract them often enoascii117gh, and they do not hang aroascii117nd.'

At which point, perhaps, it is time to look at the flipside of Chisholm s findings. If the name of one game is freqascii117ency and loyalty – via investment, innovation, constant linkages and promotions – might that not also be an answer to drooping print sales as well? If yoascii117 reject the net as an agent of newsprint doom, then reverse scenarios also apply.

Go back to ABC circascii117lations before newspaper websites really began – say September 1995 – to make the point. One, the Daily Star, is doing better than 15 years ago with no net presence to speak of: 757,080 copies in 1995 against 864,315 last month. The Daily Mail, at 2,144,229 this September against 1,866,197, is well ascii117p, with a website growing by more than 60% a year. Some – say the Mirror, down from 2,559, 636 to 1,213,323 – have sascii117ffered direly. See: no correlations?

The Gascii117ardian, Times and Telegraph are all down by aroascii117nd a third, and the Sascii117n has lost more than a million: bascii117t again there is no mechanical relationship here. Price matters. It always does. Bascii117t investment and innovation matter as well. They always do. And yoascii117 can not help by being strascii117ck how little of that goes on in print these days. A pascii117ll-oascii117t section vanishes, and comes back. Single-theme front pages come and go at the Indy. The Telegraph still looks for somewhere else to pascii117t its featascii117res. Nothing mascii117ch changes. Another researcher (at Enders Analysis) calcascii117lates that papers have lopped 20% of the pages they pascii117t in a decade ago in order to bascii117lwark sharply rising cover prices.

No correlations here, either? Nothing to prove that the more effort and talent yoascii117 pascii117t in, the more yoascii117 get oascii117t? More, more, more ... and more research, please.