Leicester Mercury sales in decline

[Alexikokopops]

I shouldn't laugh but I think Thrac will will enjoy that so lol

[digitalalba]

Having worked for the Mercury at a time when its daily circulation was 180.000 and when it was a genuine evening newspaper which published a Saturday sports buff that hit the streets less than an hour after games finished, the latest, rapidly declining figures, are a sad commentary.

The paper is no longer published in Leicester, has a very early deadline and entirely reflects the adage "you get what you pay for".

Yes. it is fighting a seemingly losing battle with the competition, but the rate of decline surely suggests that it has largely lost its way as the authoratative and campaigning voice that it should be.

Publications survive by having items of importance or interest that cannot be read elsewhere, by flying a few flags with passion and by having sufficient impact to be heard.

Instead the Mercury seems to have been editorially diluted almost beyond recognition.

Appealing to the masses when the masses were more of a similar voice would suggest that, now that there is a multitude of different flags flying, you can't please everyone all the time, thus people lose interest.

180,000, amazing - cue reasearch.

In 1989 the mercury used to sell 139,357 copies per day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_Mercury

1989 139,357

2007 73,634 -3,6662777777777 copies per year.

2008 69,069 -4,565

2010 55,000 -7,034 (Audit Bureau of Circulations - estimated graph)

2012 42,000 -6,500 (Audit Bureau of Circulations - estimated graph)

Going on those figures, the paper is comfortably loosing 3,500 per year, which means they would hit zero in 2024.

[Parafox]

We a res still producing a large array of holiday mags and classey brochures but the print run is smaller.

There is a biger range of publications though.

Still think there will be a call for print media but like you say they have to adopt.

Alot of brochures are now A5 cos of postage costs.

Holiday mags are still a firm fav for people to take home and look at in their leisure and then you have the womans favourites like heat mag and all that...

I hope you're not the proof reader!

[Finnegan]

I hope you're not the proof reader!

He could be at the Guardian.

[flowwolf]

According to ABC, no not the 80's pop group haha http://www.abc.org.u...es/18358252.pdf

Going on the first chart, the paper sold about 55,000 copies early 2010 and has since lost 13,000 copies per day to 42,000 late last year, which is roughly a downturn of -24%.

Quite a large decline, what do you think has turned a quarter of its customers away?

People no longer get engaged or married and live much longer and most kids are illegitimate, so no one's buying it for the birth deaths and marriage section plus no self respecting city fan would wipe is clinker clad bottom with the sports page.

[flowwolf]

I wrote my dissertation on this exact subject ten years ago.

My conclusion has, so far, been proven correct, which was that people will continue to buy newspapers, albeit in fewer numbers, despite being able to get news content for free.

However, the reason I will be proven wrong within the next ten years is the fact that I didn't anticipate the move in advertising spend towards online - which is what ultimate dictates the market.

You did a dissertation on the Leicester Mercury , dirty bugger.

[Guest]

I love to sit in a café and read a newspaper over a coffee, it's a wonderful experience. I love newspapers and reading but I never buy a paper now, I get my news from the internet. Papers and magazines that succeed are really going to be defined specialists I should think.

Must admit I hate the trend of paying for online news though. I've stopped reading many publications since pay to read came in. There are so many alternatives that I've not lost out much.

[Alexikokopops]

I love to sit in a café and read a newspaper over a coffee, it's a wonderful experience. I love newspapers and reading but I never buy a paper now, I get my news from the internet.

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

[Vlad the Fox]

I love to sit in a café and read a newspaper over a coffee, it's a wonderful experience. I love newspapers and reading but I never buy a paper now, I get my news from the internet. Papers and magazines that succeed are really going to be defined specialists I should think.

Must admit I hate the trend of paying for online news though. I've stopped reading many publications since pay to read came in. There are so many alternatives that I've not lost out much.

Maybe pay to read could slow down the decline, if it was the choice of paying for Internet news or hard copy I would choose the latter.

[Guest MattP]

I love to sit in a café and read a newspaper over a coffee, it's a wonderful experience. I love newspapers and reading but I never buy a paper now, I get my news from the internet. Papers and magazines that succeed are really going to be defined specialists I should think.

Must admit I hate the trend of paying for online news though. I've stopped reading many publications since pay to read came in. There are so many alternatives that I've not lost out much.

Replace cafe and coffee with pub and pint and I'm with you. A lovely walk followed by a sit down with a paper, good read and do the crossword.

Whatever the internet can produce it can't replace that. The Times stopped putting their news online last year and they are the only major paper whose circulation has increased from 2012.

Could be worse for the Mercury mind, the Independent is down to a 5 figure circ now.

[ozleicester]

Pay to read is the future.

We are truly living in the golden age of internet, at the moment its all free and access is easy, this will change over time.

Even the simple stuff like news will not be available free, yes the aggregators will tell you they can pull it from all of the newspaper websites..but that is while those sites are producing the news, (which comes from the "paper" journos)...someone has to pay for the journos and editors etc.

When we reach a point that the newspapers no longer make money, they wont pay journos and there wont be news to aggregate.

enjoy it kids...free news, free porn, free streams, free games... someone has to pay.

[OzFox]

A decline in quality is inevitable when the accountants and number crunchers at the top insist on making nigh on continuous redundancies to those at the bottom of the pile in the newsroom in order to save their own salaries.

reminds me of that David Simon quote, when talking about the Baltimore Sun:

The newsroom I worked in had four hundred and fifty people. Now it’s got three hundred. Management says, ‘We have to do more with less.’ That’s the bullshit of bean counters who care only about the bottom line. You do less with less.â€

[ozleicester]

Replace cafe and coffee with pub and pint and I'm with you. A lovely walk followed by a sit down with a paper, good read and do the crossword.

Whatever the internet can produce it can't replace that. The Times stopped putting their news online last year and they are the only major paper whose circulation has increased from 2012.

Could be worse for the Mercury mind, the Independent is down to a 5 figure circ now.

The Times is definitely online and has a paywall http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ in fact im not sure if they include the online pay readers as part of their circ currently.

Times picked up 2000 readers (statistical?) last year but is still 60,000 down on 2011

[Bayfox]

Hardly a suprise.

Theres nothing in it.

[Raj]

I hope you're not the proof reader!

Funny thing is,i partly am!!!

[accessory]

Pay to read is the future.

We are truly living in the golden age of internet, at the moment its all free and access is easy, this will change over time.

Even the simple stuff like news will not be available free, yes the aggregators will tell you they can pull it from all of the newspaper websites..but that is while those sites are producing the news, (which comes from the "paper" journos)...someone has to pay for the journos and editors etc.

When we reach a point that the newspapers no longer make money, they wont pay journos and there wont be news to aggregate.

enjoy it kids...free news, free porn, free streams, free games... someone has to pay.

Which is why many websites, including this one, carry adverts..

[ozleicester]

Which is why many websites, including this one, carry adverts..

Adblocker? ........and i can assure you that online advertising does not come even remotely close to the "rivers of gold" that newspaper advertising used to provide. There are very few websites that are profitable from their advertising revenunes alone, especially news sites. Other than the biggies, (Google, Yahoo, Facebook) most website advertising is pocket money.

The cost to staff a real newsroom is huge, witrh the devolution of the newspaper, we are losing access to real news, which is an enormous loss for all of us. Community "journalists" and bloggers are not going to be able to do the job that real journalists have done in the past.

IMO, we will have to see an enormous change in the way we access the internet eg. we pay for a lot more, or we just accept that news as we know it is dead.

Oh..and protection of whistle blowers is essential... if we dont have an independent honest media, we MUST protect those that come out and tell the truth, but as shown by Manning and Assange et al, thats not happening now and i cant see it changing in the near future.

Whistle blowers are heroes, its time they were recognised as such.

[OzFox]

Adblocker? ........and i can assure you that online advertising does not come even remotely close to the "rivers of gold" that newspaper advertising used to provide. There are very few websites that are profitable from their advertising revenunes alone, especially news sites. Other than the biggies, (Google, Yahoo, Facebook) most website advertising is pocket money.

The cost to staff a real newsroom is huge, witrh the devolution of the newspaper, we are losing access to real news, which is an enormous loss for all of us. Community "journalists" and bloggers are not going to be able to do the job that real journalists have done in the past.

IMO, we will have to see an enormous change in the way we access the internet eg. we pay for a lot more, or we just accept that news as we know it is dead.

Oh..and protection of whistle blowers is essential... if we dont have an independent honest media, we MUST protect those that come out and tell the truth, but as shown by Manning and Assange et al, thats not happening now and i cant see it changing in the near future.

Whistle blowers are heroes, its time they were recognised as such.

Newspapers should probably have got their heads together back in the 90s and come up with a collective agreement on how to monetise their product. Instead they just put their product on the internet, for free.

Budgets are so poor now that journalism has become churnalism. Much of the news we see now is just a rehash, or copy and paste, from one of the news agencies or somebody elses website.

And it's not just in newspapers. "Balcony journalism" is a phrase I've heard at the ABC and the Beeb. ie: only got time to have a quick look outside and see whats going on. Journos now have to report the same story for so many outlets...TV, radio, web, 24 hr news, blogs etc....that they no longer have the time to actually get out and talk to people let alone investigate and break a story. All that, and crap money to boot, especially if you're just starting out.

[ozleicester]

Newspapers should probably have got their heads together back in the 90s and come up with a collective agreement on how to monetise their product. Instead they just put their product on the internet, for free.

Budgets are so poor now that journalism has become churnalism. Much of the news we see now is just a rehash, or copy and paste, from one of the news agencies or somebody elses website.

And it's not just in newspapers. "Balcony journalism" is a phrase I've heard at the ABC and the Beeb. ie: only got time to have a quick look outside and see whats going on. Journos now have to report the same story for so many outlets...TV, radio, web, 24 hr news, blogs etc....that they no longer have the time to actually get out and talk to people let alone investigate and break a story. All that, and crap money to boot, especially if you're just starting out.

Very scary times... when i started out in media... the Editors and editorial staff ruled the papers (with an iron fist and an expletive filled mouth), when advertisers requested any level of support or assistance, we were laughed out of the office.

Just last week a friend still with News Ltd told me how they were sacking their editor because she wasnt being supportive enough of the advertisers.

Ugly ugly times for truth.

[Rincewind]

^{Got my info on job description today (well Thursday really) Got first equipment. Notebook, diary and pen First paid assignment Monday at the LCG depot for some launch. Forget at the moment dont have the info in front of me. Then theres the Not the Big Snooze. Will be reporting interviewing as well as participating.}

^{There is more freelance now. Anyone can write an article and if its good enough and newsworthy they will use it. Met a woman on Tuesday who had an article in the Mail about epilepsy. Don't know what she received in payment but having your story in the public domain would be enough for a lot of people so the newspapers save money that way.}

^{They even have blogs where responses can be posted which gives the average person a voice...}

[MooseBreath]

Can't see pay to read taking off. If I want general news i'll go to the BBC or just watch the news on tv before I pay for it. If I want more in depth analysis then the future is independent journalist who have sufficiently monetised their free to view blog. Why would I continue to pay for the entire media infrastructure required to produce a full news site when I can just access the content I want direct from the journalist and everyone's a winner. I guess the media know this is how things will go, hence why they're still offering free content.

[Guest]

Pay to read is the future.

We are truly living in the golden age of internet, at the moment its all free and access is easy, this will change over time.

Even the simple stuff like news will not be available free, yes the aggregators will tell you they can pull it from all of the newspaper websites..but that is while those sites are producing the news, (which comes from the "paper" journos)...someone has to pay for the journos and editors etc.

When we reach a point that the newspapers no longer make money, they wont pay journos and there wont be news to aggregate.

enjoy it kids...free news, free porn, free streams, free games... someone has to pay.

You could be right but I don't think it's that clear cut.

News organisations will try to make it pay to read but there will always be free sources.

Maybe this will just evolve into lower paid journos or many fewer higher paid journos or less independant (not that it really exists) news or poorer quality newsbut maybe not.

Only time will tell.

[Rincewind]

I may have to start buying a newspaper. Got the I today. With working for a media group we take news from other stories that seem interesting and relevant. Most of the time we'll cut them down to size and just take a small part. No celebrity news where possible. It'll be online and in a periodical newspaper. We'll be filming as well. The good thing about what we intend to do is that news stories can be put in more than one format so will be accessible by the reader whichever format is their choice.

[davieG]

The man/woman in the street with a camera/phone and internet access will be the ones providing on the spot 'local news' via social media sites and blogs where it will be picked up by someone else and put together with other stuff gathered from those sources, even now many media sources get their visuals this way.

[Guest MattP]

Can't see pay to read taking off. If I want general news i'll go to the BBC or just watch the news on tv before I pay for it. If I want more in depth analysis then the future is independent journalist who have sufficiently monetised their free to view blog. Why would I continue to pay for the entire media infrastructure required to produce a full news site when I can just access the content I want direct from the journalist and everyone's a winner. I guess the media know this is how things will go, hence why they're still offering free content.

I dunno, I purchased the Telegraph today and it really is a fantastic read, well worth £1.20 and I'd still rather read in print than online.

There will always be a market for quality journalism imo that people will pay for, just far too many people these days decide to blame the internet etc etc when in reality the real reason they aren't selling is because what they are producing is garbage.