Circulation vs Readership
I blogged on Tuesday the media readership figures for 2007. Now someone has kindly pointed me to the latest circulation figures also. Now what is the difference you may ask?
Readership figures are generally compiled from random polling. Ask 10,000 adult NZers which newspapers they read, and then you extrapolate that against the adult population so have readership figures.
Advertising prices tend to be based on readership.
Circulation figures, as I understand it, are basically an auditor going through the accounts of a publisher and verifying the number of newspapers being printed and paid for. So it should be more accurate than readership, but not necessarily more important. It affects subscription revenue but advertising revenue for most media is bigger.
Readership will always be higher than circulation as more than one person reads a newspaper often.
So did readership changes mirror circulation changes? Not much. Below is the circulation change and readership change for each major paper:
- Independent Financial Review +26%, -13.9%
- Herald on Sunday +1.1%, +5.8%
- Waikato Times +0.1%, +1.1%
- The Press n/c, +4.5%
- Dominion Post -0.1%, -3.6%
- NZ Herald -0.8%, +3.0%
- ODT -2.5%, -3.6%
- Sunday News -4.3%, -11.2%
- Sunday Star-Times -4.4%, -2.9%
- National Business Review -5.5%, +12.0%
The IFR result is puzzling. Their circulation increased by a quarter yet less people say they are reading them. Maybe their name change confused people in teh readership survey?
NBR is a bit the opposite direction. Their circulation is down, but readership up strongly. This may be that more people are reading communal copies, such as in offices etc.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
As I told you the other day, in my article on this subject, I have produced a table showing the comparative circulation and readership figures, which you are welcome to merge into your own article.
My reading of the data was that daily newspapers are holding their circulations and readership fairly well despite the rise of online competition, but magazines are having a rough time. The Sunday Star Times is also in trouble, because it is so boring.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The NBR will be more pleased than the IFR, as advertisers pay more attention to readership than circulation.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Does anyone remember the exact date when the Independent changed its name to the IFR please?
Thanks
February 21st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The daily papers being on line does result in me buying less papers – one can go to the library later for the full read.
I read, but don’t buy the NBR doing so most weekends at the library.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
poneke
It’s simply the Star-Times facing new competiton in it’s market.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Almost right, DPF. Readership isn’t based on actual reading of the publication. Interviewees are shown a masthead and asked if they’ve seen it in the past [period]. If they have, they’re a reader.
Circulation is also split into paid and unpaid. Take PC World magazine for example. The ABC lists PC World as having 14, 502 sales (over the counter) with a further 473 direct requested (subscriptions) and another 590 direct unrequested (we want you to have a copy regardless of whether you do or not) for a total of 15,565. Readership, based on ACNeilsen’s figures, is much higher because each copy is deemed to be passed on several times. Some magazines have tremendously high re-reader rates (to the point of beggaring belief) but I’m not sure who makes those decisions.