Excerpt from E&P article:
Tribune Co. papers rolled out highly touted redesigns in this period, but lost readers. The Chicago Tribune lost 7.4% of its daily circulation to 501,202 and 4.5% on Sunday to 858,256 copies. Circulation plunged at the Los Angeles Times at 6.5% of its daily circulation (Monday through Friday) to 723,181 copies. Sunday was down 7.4% to 1,019,388.
This is the trouble with touting anything highly, I suppose, and with trying to substitute style for substance, and with taking more away from your product than you give, and with following the advice of a crystal-ball reader instead of a market researcher, and with trying to run a newspaper at a time when people mostly see the newspaper as a recycling problem and news as the latest on American Idol.
Here’s something from an E&P sidebar:
One of Tribune Co.’s smaller newspapers, The Hartford (Conn.) Courant, reported a weekday decline of 7.5% to 155,540. Single-copy sales results were not immediately available.
The good news here is that the Courant is “read by 800,000 Connecticut residents every week in print and online.”
Incidentally, 800,000 divided by 7 equals only 114,286 per day — just for print. So something somewhere ain’t right.
Anyway, in some good news, the Morning Call posted a readership gain of more than 9 percent.



Thought you might be interested in this old press release from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. It touches on the difference between circulation, as measured by ABC (how many copies of the print paper you sell), and readership, as measured in surveys done by Scarborough Research (how many readers there are over a given time period). The distinction seems to confuse some posters.
Claude