Dear Newspapers: It’s Not About Reach Anymore
March 8, 2009 – 8:43 pm | by Daryl TayMy mum showed me this article from the Straits Times a few days ago, with the headline: “Blogs’ reach limited: Study“, stating that mainstream media is still the key source of news and views, at least socio-politically. (Straits Times: It literally took me just about four minutes to find the link to that page. Why doesn’t Google pick up your stuff and why is your archival system so bad?)
So what I want to comment on, is this paragraph:
Mr Tan compared the several thousand readers who tune in to socio-political websites The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Wayang Party Club to The Straits Times’ circulation of nearly 400,000 and its readership of 1.3 million.
Without going on all day, here are my quick thoughts:
- I suppose newspapers being awesome have nothing to do with the numerous newspapers shutting down worldwide. (Here are some Google search results)
- Of the 400,000 circulation, how many people actively care about the “socio-political” commentary?
- Straits Times has a “readership” of 1.3 million, which means the 400,000 circulation is roughly passed along three times. Or in the case of my family, seven of us (including the dog) have access to the Straits Times, but maybe one person reads it regularly. (The dog used to eat it regularly. Talk about consuming the news.)
- I suppose the “readership” applies to army camps where they have one copy of it but it’s shared by 30 people, most of whom don’t manage to get their hands on it
- The websites with “several thousand readers” (why no figures?) are actively being sought out, compared to newspapers.
- The people seeking out that content are particularly motivated and highly engaged in the source material
- If I were in an organisation (non-profit, cause, school, company, government), I’d easily trade 5,000 newspaper “readers” for 1 person actively searching for my content
- Reach means nothing.
What are your thoughts? Are articles like this just plain in denial? Or is there really something here?
Tags: actively seeking out content, Blogs, Google, mainstream media, newspaper circulation, newspaper readership, newspapers, newspapers shutting down, reach, Singapore, socio-politically, source of news, straits times, straits times archival system, straits times archives, the online citizen, the wayang party club
9 Responses to “Dear Newspapers: It’s Not About Reach Anymore”
By Cneil on Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
I agree with the newspaper that their “reach” is much larger than blogs. I would argue that the voices presented in the Straits Times are perhaps equal to or slightly more pervasive and persuasive than every single Singapore blogger put together.
However, companies will go to bloggers because it is simply a cheaper way to advertise. You’re so right that most businesses don’t have to reach everyone, just the people who are interested in them. Also, the Straits Times charges several thousand dollars a day to run an ad. Blogs are free + time. Which is a more cost effective form of advertising?
By Daryl Tay on Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
@Cneil: Thanks, Cullen. Right I suppose I didn’t get into the matter of content and clarity and thoughtfulness, but I guess to me it’s like “can we stop talking about reach already?!”. Like if it’s about content then let’s make it about content instead of spreading these “messages”.
I suppose again with advertising, it depends if it’s mass reach or engaged niche that the advertiser is aiming for. The example I like to give is NTUC. Newspapers all the way because that’s what people will look for!
By ssumin on Mar 9, 2009 | Reply
Actually would be interesting if there are stats that break down the numbers that read that various sections in the papers. Otherwise comparing general media with niche websites is quite pointless because reach/circulation on its own has limited significance.
Anecdotally, I believe people rely on ST and other MSM for local news, while seeking out other sources for their more niche interests. By virtue that ST is a general paper, it won’t be able to cover niche topics in as much detail as a niche website could. So again comparisons are moot.
To be fair to those who take ST and other MSM as benchmarks of reach/ readership, it is the clearest way of measuring influence. Content is after all subjective.
Btw, like your point on website readers being “highly engaged in the source material”. That’s true – I’m not just idly flipping, I’m actually seeking out the content. That’s a measure of influence that can’t be quantified.
By Michael on Mar 9, 2009 | Reply
Hey Daryl,
Nice post, and a great follow-up to last Thursday’s conversations as well.
What I noticed was that the researchers only look at socio-political blogs. They are not looking at blogs generally, as far as I can tell.
This study appears to be quite limited in scope and probably is not talking about blogs in Singapore generally. I have written NUS asking for a copy of the slides or even the research paper, but sadly no response at all.
Nice post
By David on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
Reach is obviously a key facet, but the underlying motivation for consumption is another, which the study did not appear to touch on. When an average ST reader scans the papers in the morning, for example, what is he/she looking for? News versus views? What about an average TOC or Yawning Bread reader? Which one has more influence in shaping opinion-formation? Nice work, Daryl.
By yin on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
i agree that reach means nothing. last year i had the unfortunate chance of sitting in a sph presentation where all the guy went on and on and ON about was the reach of their papers. but it clearly means nothing when everyone was tuned to news online and gave a rat’s butt about the papers.
By yin on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
i wanted to add that the “reach” papers have are lost because not all individuals pore over every single article in the papers. and it can’t be guaranteed that those who do read the papers would be interested in everything. companies know better to use blogs because the “reach” is justified (site trackers etc)?
By Shalabh Pandey on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
What needs to be noted that due to massive media fragmentation, people consume content across multiple platforms. Much of it might be attributed to availability (as and where available).
*From a publishers perspective- Blogs and newspapers are two different mediums – and both work in tandem not as mutually exclusive. Both feed each other.
*From an audience perspective- they consume both- though one has content from people that they know or want to be likewise; whereas other channels for other reasons (production value being one- and that they have their neck on the noose if they do not report correctly)
*From a marketers perspective- many do acknowledge that all media should work together- and are going all out to figure out how to integrate communication across platforms. Blogs are engaging, have different attributes (tribes Vs readers) and they need to be used differently (like all media channels)- engagement Vs exposure
Having said that, it is quite clear that more than anyone else,newspapers need to reinvent their model- now that the distributed content era is knocking hard on their doors.
By Daryl Tay on Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
@ssumin: That would be great to have, but I’m sure that data would be hard to get! For me, there is no doubt that at least in Singapore, MSM and newspapers are the primary source of news. That’s fine. It’s just the comparison of “reach” that gets to me. And about engagement: You made me think of more thoughts about that. I”ll get back to you in another post!
@Michael: Thanks. Yes the research was narrowed to socio-political blogs, but even in that context, I think reach is not the ultimate factor…
@David: Thanks for the kind words. Content and context are ignored in the article (and in my post), but should be considered in future research.
@Yin: That is *exactly* my point. It just irks me for these people to say “but we reach more than a million people” as if that outweighs every other factor out there. It doesn’t.
@Shalabh Pandey: I really enjoyed reading your point. I didn’t explicitly say it in my post, but I felt the whole “reach” issue is just newspapers trying to “delay” their “demise”, instead of reinventing their models – as you rightly pointed out. I think spending some time to rethink their models and working on it would be much more productive than playing the same tune of “newspapers are fine. we reach millions”