Newspaper circulation figures continue to fall. Since a high of nearly 63 million daily newspaper readers in 1985, the numbers are an exercise in subtraction. This is especially so among the 18-34 age group. Reading even just once during a week among that cohort fell to under 40 percent in 2004.
These losses came despite content changes aimed at women and that younger cohort. Some of this move away from solid news coverage to pop culture coverage and info graphics the size of a Volkswagen (while the news hole lost more space to advertising) was aimed at stopping the circulation decline.
A lot of the design changes newspapers have made in the past 30 years, some quite costly, have been made specifically to draw in the young. I have always wanted to do a ROI study of newspaper redesigns, but figured I wouldn't get accurate numbers from publishers, so why bother? In the aggregate, it must not be working, as the numbers show.
But a whole new career field called newspaper design evolved from trying to solve the circulation problem. As an aesthetic exercise, it has been wonderful: newspapers are much better organized and more attractive than 50 years ago. Then, people did page "makeup" for hot type and basically chose between ugly cuts of Bodoni or Futura for headlines. No color. Awful photo reproduction.
As a business exercise, it has to be called a failure, based on circulation figures. Worse yet, the Boomers' eyesight continues to get worse, and since they haven't really saved for retirement, that Gazette subscription will have to go. Then we'll all eventually die off.
Then that downward staircase of yearly circulation figures will turn into cliffs. When the Boomers are mostly gone, newspapers will be -- will have to be -- different. Maybe the "paper" part of the word will have to go (or it will be weird, like how we still say "dial" a phone number even though rotary phones are long gone).
All that being said, I not only love newspapers still, I love newspaper design. I just wish it had worked better.
2 comments:
Yep, a crusty old Boomer, you are.
Hiya, Trout. Harry here. Took a gander at your 7-14 rant and decided someone ought to agree or disagree with you. First, so you have discovered that people don't read. Well, there is an alternative I learned about last night: reading addiction. Yep. But it wasn't newspapers she was talking about. Second, what do you envision if no paper is used? Delivery of the daily email? That's already here.
You lament the advent of MacPaper. I vote with my wallet and don't buy them. Course, I don't subscribe to much of anything other than Nat Geo.
"Ever get the feeling that the only people reading a newspaper these days are sitting in television newsrooms?" -- Overheard in the newsroom
Post a Comment