BJR research on newspaper readership

• Few people contemplate giving up reading newspapers
• Free-sheets haven't made much impact
• It's still news that most attracts readers
• Young people are twice as likely as other age groups to read papers more often than two years ago

Since then, the dotcom era has boomed, bust and grown again, while the only evidence of a commuter reading revolution is the ubiquitous presence of freesheets and kids gyrating to the sound of their iPods. No one ever predicted that it would be music rather than television that might kill the newspaper, but that’s media forecasting for you. Nevertheless, the conventional wisdom about a seemingly inexorable decline in newspaper circulation still pervades our newsrooms, even if the short-term prognosis is no longer quite so terminal. The most recent year-on-year circulation figures add some grist to the mill of the doom-mongers, showing a 2.6 per cent decline in overall daily circulation in 2005 compared to the previous year, and a 3.7 per cent decline in Sunday circulation. And it’s certainly true that the cumulative decline over the last 10 and 20 years doesn’t look good: daily national circulation down 10.2 per cent from 1995, and 16.6 per cent from 1985; Sundays down 12.4 per cent and 23.8 per cent respectively.

These figures raise two questions about the long-term future of the print media. First, are they really so catastrophic? The last 10 years have seen some truly spectacular developments in electronic news media, from the proliferation of multi-channel television and 24-hour news channels to immediate news access online and via mobile phones. On top of that, there have been specialist magazine launches and TV channel launches, all competing with the many-layered specialist sections of the daily press. It is a crowded, bustling maelstrom of a media world in which – on one interpretation – the old-fashioned daily printed word has done astonishingly well to hold its own. But the more interesting question is: for how much longer? There are those inside and outside the industry who genuinely fear that the daily printed newspaper will soon become as anachronistic as the black Bakelite telephone, and that it simply cannot survive in the modern world. Can the newspaper continue to offer something different and unique in people’s lives? Is it being overwhelmed by the immediacy of 24-hour channels and the internet? Is it too expensive, too opinionated, too distrusted journalistically, or just too much to handle on a daily basis when there are so many other calls on people’s time? Will it be on its deathbed five years from now?

We can offer clues to the answers to some of these questions through original research commissioned by the BJR to try to understand the factors that might be turning people off newspapers. Various reasons have been adduced over the years for the slow decline in circulation, and publishers have responded aggressively with price cuts, promotions, more pagination, more sections, more columnists and more marketing. Some have even invested more in editorial content. Is this a chronic case of Canute trying to stem the inevitable tide, or is the newspaper culture actually more robust than circulation figures might have us believe? Our research – consisting of some attitude and behaviour questions asked of a representative sample of the population – suggests that the newspaper may have a longer shelf-life than many believed possible, and that the model of the cinema – adapting to the television age but not being overwhelmed by it – might be the more appropriate analogy.

The good news is that nearly three-quarters of those interviewed said they read a newspaper of some kind (excluding via the net) at least once a week. The bad news is that more than a quarter (29 per cent) said they now read a newspaper less often than two years ago, rising to nearly a third (32 per cent) when the question was asked specifically about national newspapers. Just 13 per cent say they read a paper more often than two years ago, declining to one in 10 for the national press (see Table One). Reasons for the lower frequency were more likely to be attributed to the easy availability of other media and to time-pressure rather than any journalistic or editorial problems associated with the papers themselves. More than half of those who read less frequently (52 per cent) said they could get the news they wanted from other sources such as TV, the internet or magazines; and 45 per cent said they could get the information they needed from elsewhere. Just over a third said they didn’t have as much time for newspapers any more, and just over a quarter said they didn’t want to spend so much money on newspapers. By contrast, just under a third (32 per cent) were concerned about the truth or accuracy of what they read, and less than a quarter (22 per cent) had simply lost interest in their newspaper. The political stance taken by their paper was a factor only for one in 10 of those who read less frequently (see Table Two).

There was some counter-intuitive evidence about young people’s behaviour. Conventional wisdom dictates that it’s only the older generations who cling to the quaint notion of regular newspaper readership, while the young embrace the new media revolution. While it was true that only 16 per cent of 18-30 year olds were daily readers, compared to 30 per cent overall, they were no more likely than any other age group to have forsaken newspapers completely. More importantly, twice as many in that age group say they read a newspaper more often than two years ago. In fact, when looking at the reasons why people read newspapers less, the gender differences are more pronounced than the age differences: 60 per cent of men blame other sources of news compared to 45 per cent of women. The real issue for younger people seems to be time rather than the net: 57 per cent of 18-30s said they had less time for newspapers compared with 36 per cent overall and compared with just 21 per cent of the over 50s.

Reasons for reading a newspaper more often than two years ago suggest that it’s the journalistic content rather than convenience or promotional initiatives that attract people. Of those who read more, 44 per cent said simply that they found more which they enjoyed reading (rising to more than half of the mid-market Mail and Express readers), while more than a quarter said they liked particular sections and particular columns or writers. By contrast, only a fifth said it was because someone else’s copy of the paper was easily available; just over a tenth that it was free or delivered to the home; and only 9 per cent that they were attracted by a promotion. There’s some cheer for editors in those figures: although promotional gimmicks or price-cuts might boost short-term readership, or dissuade existing readers from defecting, it seems the culture of the newspaper as something worth reading is still vibrant. What’s more, whatever popular mistrust there may be of print compared to broadcast journalism, it doesn’t yet appear to have made a serious impact on people’s willingness to read newspapers.

Those broad findings, and particularly the competitive threat posed by electronic media, are supported by responses to a number of specific attitude statements. Half agreed with the statement that “the internet means there’s less need for me to read a newspaper than there used to be”, which rose to 62 per cent of 18-30 year-olds (see Table Three). Crucially, 73 per cent of those who read a newspaper less often agreed with this statement, which strongly suggests that the net is one of the driving forces behind circulation decline. Better news for the printed word is that, among the hard-core of daily newspaper readers, only 23 per cent agreed with the statement and only 3 per cent agreed strongly.

The balance of opinion tips the other way in response to the more extreme statement that “there’s nothing I can get from newspapers which I can’t get from TV, magazines or the internet”, with 41 per cent in agreement and 47 per cent opposed. That’s still a worryingly high percentage of readers who are effectively saying that there is nothing particularly special about newspapers, but it falls considerably among daily and frequent readers. It is those who read a newspaper no more than once or twice a week who are much more likely to have doubts about the newspaper’s uniqueness, and who will be more vulnerable to competition from other media. While that may not necessarily be cause for optimism, these are people who seem to have lost, or never had, a regular newspaper habit.

This notion of the newspaper’s unique role is given a much more favourable endorsement when readers are asked whether they find things they like in a newspaper that they can’t get elsewhere. By a ratio of more than two to one, respondents reacted favourably: just over half agreed, while just under a quarter disagreed. In this case, it’s not just the balance of opinion that is encouraging, but the response among young readers. Half the 18-30s said they found things in newspapers they couldn’t get elsewhere, and a quarter disagreed, almost exactly the same proportions as overall. So the idea that newspapers are increasingly redundant in young people’s lives doesn’t seem to have much resonance in their attitudes. In fact, it was the type of newspaper that generated a greater variety of responses to this statement rather than age. While just over half the popular tabloid readers agreed with it, the figure rose to more than two-thirds for the mid-markets and three quarters for qualities. The most recent circulation figures, which show a fractional rise in year-on-year circulation figures for the qualities, confirms that the prognosis for that end of the market may be a lot better than for the tabloids.

How newspapers differentiate themselves from others in the media jungle is something that constantly preoccupies editors. Despite the increase in comment pages and the rise of the opinionated columnist, it is still straightforward news that primarily attracts readers. Only 16 per cent agreed that they “read a newspaper for its opinions rather than news”, while nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) disagreed and more than a quarter disagreed strongly (see Table Four). On this evidence, one of print’s great advantages over broadcast news – that it can be as biased and opinionated as it wants – may not be the route to salvation. On the other hand, attitudes to newspapers as entertainment vehicles were not quite so clear-cut. More than a quarter (27 per cent) agreed they “read a newspaper for entertainment rather than news or comment”, while just over half (52 per cent) disagreed. It will come as no great surprise that the main distinction was between tabloid readers versus mid-market and quality press readers. Just less than three-quarters (74 per cent) of quality readers disagreed with this (and a third disagreed strongly), compared with less than half (46 per cent) the tabloid readers. And it was newspaper loyalists – the daily readers – who were also much more likely to disagree. The lesson seems to be that however entertaining the horoscopes, confessional letters and Sudoku puzzles may be, for most readers they still represent the frills rather than the raison d’être of a newspaper.

The most vociferous disagreement was in response to the statement: “I wouldn’t read a newspaper at all if I had to pay for them.” This was aimed at those who relied on, or were starting to rely on, the ever-increasing volume of home-delivered or commuter freesheets, to see whether this might present a growing threat to the paid-for press. The statement seemed to have little resonance among readers; even among occasional readers it was endorsed by only one in five. There was no relation between the price of newspapers and concern about paying for them: readers of the more expensive quality papers were even less likely to agree than those who read the cheaper tabloids or mid-markets. This doesn’t tell us anything about perceptions of the quality of free newspapers, nor whether more readers might be tempted to abandon the paid-fors if there was a significant improvement in their free competitors. As things stand, however, it suggests that the increase in freesheets has not made a huge impact on overall circulation figures.

Untapped negative thinking

Over the next few years there will be more demands on people’s time, an even more expansive media world, more emphasis on immediacy, and more reasons to give up the newspaper habit. There will, certainly, be continued circulation decline. But the evidence suggests that, just as cinema going declined until the 80s and then bottomed out and rose again, newspapers will find their plateau. This pre-supposes that the business models – in particular for the quality end whose greater reliance on advertising may be threatened – will continue to work. But in cultural and consumer terms, as long as the newspaper industry can continue to offer something of real journalistic substance, our data suggest that it will continue to find a willing and substantial readership.

Results are based on a representative UK sample of 2,069 respondents answering questions in a YouGov online survey, carried out from January 17-20, 2006.
View full poll results