Pages

Nov 3, 2009

Newspaper Circulation

The Audit Bureau of Circulation's report last month showed daily newspaper circulation plunging 10.6% from year-ago levels, a dramatically steeper decline than the historical trend. Not surprisingly, many commentators see the accelerating decline as the end (or at least the terminal stage) of the newspaper format. And they'll be right in less than a decade if circulation continues to drop by the current pace of 4-5 million subscribers per year. On the other hand, Daniel Gross over at Slate is not so sure and he recommends that we all just "chillax". In Gross's view, the recent decline may be largely explained by general economic conditions.

"... there's nothing ipso facto shocking about a decline in patronage of 10 percent in six months... In case anybody has forgotten, we've had a deep, long recession, a huge spike in unemployment, and a credit crunch. Consumers have cut back sharply on all sorts of expenditures.... Many other components of consumer discretionary spending—hotels, restaurants, air travel—have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels? I'm not sure why we would expect consumption of a purely discretionary item that costs a few hundred dollars per year not to fall in the type of macroeconomic climate we've had."

Gross also reminds us that many publishers took steps that predictably reduced circulation, including raising prices and discontinuing home delivery to outlying suburban areas that could no longer be served economically.

Extrapolating from two data points is a highly uncertain business so Gross is right to recommend caution, especially when current cyclical factors may greatly exaggerate secular trends. For his part, Gross declares, "At some point in the future, newspapers may disappear. But count me in the later rather than sooner camp." But a peek at longer-term trends suggests that difference between "sooner" and "later" may be shorter than one might think. The chart below plots total daily circulation from 1940 through 2009 (the shaded areas indicate recessions).

(click chart to enlarge)


These circulation numbers come from the Newspaper Association of America (spreadsheet available here). For 2009, I have reduced the NAA's 2008 statistic by the Audit Bureau of Circulation's estimate that April-September 2009 average circulation was down 10.6% from the prior year period, resulting in an average daily circulation estimate of 43.4 million for 2009. (Over at his Newsosaur blog, the estimable Alan Mutter extrapolates a 2009 estimate of 39.1 million, but without his underlying data, I cannot reconcile that number to the NAA historical estimates, which are probably counted differently from the ABC numbers anyway).

The long-run trend is unmistakable. Circulation peaked 36 years ago, in 1973 but remained relatively stable until the 1990's when it began a steady downward trend, which accelerated in 2003, and appears to have accelerated even more in 2009.

The data provide some support to Gross's thesis: in the 1974 slowdown and the 1980-82 "double-dip" recession, circulation declined temporarily, but rebounded with economic recovery. By my calculations, those recessions caused circulation to decline about 2.2% vs. the trend from the five years preceding the recession.

More recently, during the two relatively mild recessions of 1990 and 2001, if the recessions caused any decline in circulation, there was no subsequent recovery. In fact, the decline in circulation accelerated as the economy emerged from those two recessions. So I suspect Gross is right that the current recession has accounted for some of the circulation decline; but if past recessions are any guide, the measured 10.6% decline reported by the ABC might be only 8.0-8.5% in a healthy economy. This is hardly reassuring news for the industry and recent history argues against a significant post-recession rebound. Even ignoring the recent plunge, if the trend from the past five years (excluding 2009) were to continue, total daily newspaper circulation would fall to 33 million by 2020, which seems optimistic in light of the manifest challenges faced by the industry.

It's also useful to consider newspaper circulation per household. By this measure, newspaper circulation has been declining steadily since World War II with most of the decline coming from the near-extinction of the afternoon daily. Over half a century, circulation per household has declined by 1.4 percentage points per year with remarkable consistency.

(Click chart to enlarge)

No doubt the introduction of evening newscasts on television 50 years ago reduced the perceived value of the afternoon paper, but even in 1980, the year CNN was launched, afternoon circulation actually exceeded morning circulation. Since then, afternoon circulation has all but disappeared. Morning circulation, which trended up in the 1980's (presumably as afternoon subscribers switched) and was relatively flat during the 1990's, has been dropping steadily since 2000, around the time that household penetration of high-speed internet access began in earnest.



(Click chart to enlarge)

As with the raw data, extrapolating the current year's trend suggests that newspapers would cease to exist by 2017. This is the "breathless" conclusion Gross warns us against, and his caution is warranted because (if for no other reason) as marginal subscribers quit, the remaining subscriber base is, by definition, the most loyal to the medium.

Still, longer-term trendlines based on the full data set and the period since 1999 yield very similar predictions, namely that circulation will fall to about 20% of U.S. households by 2020 (I'm ignoring the fact that some households may take multiple papers). Against the backdrop of the long-term trend, and with the internet acting as an obvious catalyst for further declines, this prediction seems entirely plausible.

But even if a loyal subset of households want their morning newspaper, the bigger question is whether the business model will continue to work at decreasing scale. As I have argued
elsewhere, the newspaper industry historically enjoyed enviable returns to scale. As the industry shrinks, it may fall through a threshold level of scale (call it the "Tripping Point") below which the model is irretrievably broken and the publishers themselves pull the plugs on the presses.

Where might this threshold be? The approximately 40% decline in advertising revenue over the past 18 months put many papers through a near-death experience. Even if ad spending returns to pre-recession levels, a 40% reduction in circulation from today's levels (which would occur in 2018 according to the long-term trend) might be unsustainable if it implies a corresponding 40% reduction in ad revenue.

Further, if only two out of ten households take the morning paper at some point in the next decade, can home delivery continue to be justified? At some point, route density starts to work against the industry and the paper-boy may go the way of the milkman.

Chicago Trib to AP: "Cancel my subscription"

The Chicago Tribune is testing whether it can live without Associated Press content.

Oct 29, 2009

Is Virtual Farming Bigger than Actual Farming?


The NYT has an article today that claims 62 million people have signed up to play Farmville on Facebook.

I am not one of these 62 million, so you'll have to read the NYT article (or ask any random 5 people in the U.S., one of them is likely a Farmville player) how the game actually works. But I am fascinated by the economic effort expended on Farmville.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (see page 9) the total economic contribution from U.S. farming in 2007 was $137.3 billion. Dividing $137.3 by 62 million Farmville registrants equals $2,215 per user per year. Divide $2,215 by the current minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) and you get 305 hours. Divide 305 hours by 52 weeks and you get roughly six hours per week.

If Farmville players are spending six hours per week on this game, the opportunity cost of the Farmville economy may be larger than the actual U.S. agricultural sector.

And, no, I will not adopt your lost cow.

Oct 28, 2009

Monkeys, Typewriters and The Odds of the Governor's Hidden Message

Everyone's heard the theory that with enough chimpanzees, typewriters and time, you'd eventually produce "Hamlet."

Shakespeare it's not, but California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office today released a letter to the California State Assembly vetoing Assembly Bill 1176. A number of commentators have noticed a sub-textual message composed by the first letter of each line. The governor's office has called it "unintentional" and a "weird coincidence."

How weird? What are the odds that seven lines of a note could just happen to spell out this particular message? Would you believe less than one in 2.7 billion?

The math is surprisingly simple. Assume that each of the seven important lines of the letter have to start with a word (no hyphenation) that itself begins with a specific letter. The odds of randomly coming up with the Governor's message is then the product of the odds of each of the seven letters occurring as the first letter of all the words in the English language.

Surprisingly, a quick scan of the web didn't uncover a complete list of beginning-of-word letter frequency for English (how 'bout some help here, Google?) but I did find this top ten list.

Letter Frequency
T 0.1594
A 0.1550
I 0.0823
S 0.0775
O 0.0712
C 0.0597
M 0.0426
F 0.0408
P 0.0400
W 0.0382

Source: Top 10 Beginning of Word Letters

So here's the math (using < 0.0382 for "u", "k" and "y" which don't make the top ten.

f = .0408 x
u < .0382 x
c = .0597 x
k < .0382 x

y < .0382 x
o = .0712 x
u < .0382

<= 3.693 x 10^(-10) or approximately one in 2.7 billion.

Some coincidence... the governor may have some especially talented chimps on his staff.

Oct 8, 2009

Does Barry Diller Watch "The Office"?

Barry Diller, a very smart guy and CEO of IAC/Interactive Corp, once famously dissed "user-generated content" (a progressively meaningless phrase) by suggesting that there's a limited audience for videos of "... a cat throwing up on your grandmother."

A few minutes ago, I finished watching NBC's one-hour episode of "The Office" featuring Pam and Jim's wedding, now, no longer, again available at www.hulu.com. It was, as always, charming and brilliantly executed. But most notable was the closing five minute sequence which was a lovely homage (fair use?) to "Jill and Kevin's Big Day" on YouTube, which features Chris Brown's song, "Forever".

Here's "The Office" version.



Art and reality reflect each other in infinite recursion. And tonight's episode of "The Office" may cause Mr. Diller to re-think his cat vomit thesis. Somewhere out there in UGC-land, Jill and Kevin had an inspired idea, arguably violated Sony BMG's copyright, choreographed five very special minutes of their lives, posted it on the internet, and created a sensation (28 million views!) Now that NBC has picked up the theme (in a show that ironically poses as documentary) it will probably drive another 50,000 iTune downloads for a guy currently serving six months of community service in Virginia.

Is this a great country, or what?

P.S. Even if you don't usually watch the show, check out the opening 1:45 below. For a more ham-fisted use of the vomit theme, check out Microsoft's online ad (since pulled) for Internet Explorer 8.