Irish Newspaper Readership 2005: Fact or Fantasy?

by divil's advocate barrister counselor and solicitors drinking - for X Tue Mar 15, 2005 22:20

where's your evidence?
produce the scrolls!
LOL
if people are literate, then they should read.
no? what pisses me off is the move of the so-called "newspapers of reference" in Europe to subscription sites. very dodgy. I remember sharing a house once in Dublin 8, rehobeth place, in fact, and my housemates complained at my collections of Irish Times saying at various times that they were - a fire hazard, attracting mice, attracting vermin of all sorts, had encouraged german cockroaches to illegally imigrate on the rosslare line from france, a nusiance, blah blah-.
Enough of that shite!

free the archives now!

by not surprised Tue Mar 15, 2005 01:53

Your piece is based on nothing but speculation and suspicion. You think its odd that as circulation has declined slightly, readership has gone up. But that's all you have - suspicion. You don't have a sole fact or new new figure to back up a single syllable of your piece.

In all fairness, the JNRS figures are based on a pretty scientific study (the most comprehensive of its type, I think), and are auditied by a cross-industry committee. I doubt that there is any sort of skulduggery going on here, although maybe you were aiming your piece at the ten-to-a-penny conspiracy theorists on Indymedia who would quite happily lap up that sort of guff, whether its true or not.

JNRS figures are produced for the sake of advertisement pricing, so in reality, circulation doesn't matter a jot. We both know that the revenue base for all national papers is heavily weighted in favour of advertising, and not retail sales (with the exception of some of the tabloids).

It's quite feasible that readership habits would change, and a study with a sample of 7,000 would easily pick up these changes. The explosion in supplements is the most likely cause for the divergence between circulation and readership, as papers strive to make their product as readable by as many different types of people as possible. [Dad reads the sport section, Mum reads the Home supplement, Trendy-Daughter reads the culture section, Geeky-Son the business section and so on and so bloody on]

You say - "The readership data should be taken with a good pinch of salt. While it is dubious enough to claim that each sold copy of a morning newspaper is read on average by 3 people – some copies would have multiple readers in workplaces, a similar ratio for an evening paper, simply isn’t credible."

Yet you give no grounds for your opinion. You suggest that the JNRS simply multiplies circulation by three, which isn't true. Also, your point about evening newspapers is ridiculous. There are no evening newspapers on the JNRS. The evening herald sends out its 1st edition before noon, in plenty of time to find its way onto a canteen table in some office or factory. And the ratio for sunday papers is more than credible, seeing as sunday papers tend to be bought per household. 3 to a copy seems fairly reasonable to me, but then again, I didn't carry out a random survey of 7,000 people, and neither did you. JNRS did, so their assertions carry more weight than either of us.

I think we both know that you are just playing up to the anti-mainstream media bias of this site by groundlessly suggesting that the JNRS figures are rigged in the hope of getting a few hits for your site - which, I might add, is almost entirely made up of stories culled from the mainstream press you seem to have such contempt for. One gullible know-nothing who commented before me has already taken the bait. (And no, hmmm, online readership is not included)


To be honest, I think its fairly lame to write a piece like yours on the basis of innuendo.
Or can you produce a single fact to back up what has to be the least insightful media-analysis piece I have ever read?

by hmm Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:46

Maybe its increased "online" digital readership (or hits to their sites) which they disguise as increased "readership".