![newspaperstack11[1]](http://www.teleread.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/newspaperstack111.jpg "newspaperstack11[1]")
In a recent post to his blog, “Reflections of a Newsosaur,” veteran journalist blogger Alan D. Mutter talks about newspapers’ latest attempt to ward off irrelevancy as their circulation figures continue to shrink. This time, publishers have decided to try to reduce the damage by changing the way they count circulation—making it almost impossible to compare current figures to those from previous years.
In the second major overhaul of circulation rules in two years, publishers as of Oct. 1 will be able for the first time to include certain types of free products in their top-line circulation totals.This change follows a rule implemented last year that permits newspapers to count print or digital products sold for as little as a penny as “paid” circulation.
Previously, the minimum requirement for “paid” circulation was taking in 25% of list price.
As Mutter points out, a recent Pew poll showed that newspapers have fallen to third place behind mobile media and the Internet as most Americans’ source of news. And many papers now offer mobile media and Internet formats, and naturally they want to get credit for people reading them.
Mutter goes further into the details of the audit rules, and they are interesting, but don’t bear repeating at length here. The important thing is, it remains to be seen whether these changes are going to have any effect on newspapers’ continuing decline compared methods of getting the news on-screen.
I would imagine that from advertisers points of view what they care about it how many people look at the newspaper itself and therefore their advert. What amount is paid is irrelevant.
From an industry point of view, on assessing the success of newspapers in selling their product I can see the problem. Do these new rules mean that full price paid for hard copies are not going to be compiled or made public from now on at all ?
from the public’s point of view newspapers are already slipping in relevancy and their circ. figures couldn’t be less interesting.