The web versus print debate rages on but one Midlands daily editor has scored a victory for paper over page impressions.

Last week we reported how departing Aston Villa footballer Gareth Barry penned a personal farewell letter to fans which appeared exclusively in Wednesday’s Birmingham Mail print edition.

Editor Steve Dyson refused to put the letter online until lunchtime on Wednesday, meaning media companies such as BBC Five Live, Setanta and Sky Sports News had to highlight the letter in the print edition of the Mail, bringing it unparalleled levels of publicity during the morning.

Villa fans’ forums were full of the news while Steve conducted five live broadcast interviews in a four-hour period, with outlets reading excerpts from the letter on the proviso the Mail’s exclusive was mentioned.

The full text of the letter was not meant to go online until 4pm but once it had been posted in its entirety on other websites, it went live at 12.45pm.

As a result of this activity, sales figures for the paper were up by 4,085 copies, resulting in the best Wednesday sales for nearly three months.

In his Editor’s Chair latest blog posting, Steve is understandably pleased with his decision.

He wrote: “For an editor, there is just nothing like hearing about a lift in newspaper sales. And if you planned that sales lift with particular actions, it’s all the sweeter.

“This absence until the afternoon prevented any initial copying and pasting and forced other media outlets to highlight our story.

“The fact Barry wrote to Villa fans via the Birmingham Mail was covered by Setanta, Five Live, Sky Sports News, Talk Sport and the Press Association.

“This was the sort of publicity you cannot buy, and directly resulted in thousands more readers buying the paper.

“Now that’s what I call a successful result of delaying the uploading of Barry’s letter to appear online.

“You can’t do this with every story…..But I will be remembering how well it worked for another occasion in the very near future!”

AFTERNOON UPDATE:

Steve has now posted some web figures on his blog and it appears that birminghammail.net also enjoyed a surge in readers relating to the above story.

Last Wednesday saw a jump of 30,000 hits on the website over the course of the day, making it the best daily performance for the site in 12 months.

Comments

Rob (11/06/2009 09:38:56)
Must have taken real insight to get this result. Probably took all of five minutes to decide giving it away for free on the website before ot went in the paper wouldn’t help sales figures. The editor really deserves a pat on the back. I’m glad to see he has given himself one in his self-penned blog. Well done Steve.

Observer (11/06/2009 09:42:58)
Trinity, Northcliffe, Newsquest, Johnson et al – are we learning yet?
And I particularly like the juxtaposition of that headline underneath. I’m sure the Villa fans won’t think the same thing.

Edna (11/06/2009 09:49:51)
You mean to say that giving something away for nothing stops people from paying for it…? Astonishing. If only journalists had been saying this for years, I’m sure editors and MDs would have listened.

Michael (11/06/2009 10:01:54)
Raises the same question with a low circulation paid-for and its sister high distribution free paper being a matching pair, using the same stories. We’ll all get it for nothing if we can. Same goes for the staff reporters versus press releases debate. Produce a paper that is worth buying and people will buy it. But for heavens sake don’t put all the stories on the website before the paper hits the streets, or you will destroy any reason for paying good money for it. Very short teasers on the website would help sales though, generating a reader need for the full story.

Lister (11/06/2009 10:02:27)
Let me get this right. If you are in the business of making money, it makes more sense to sell a product people want than to give it to them for nothing? Crikey. Wasn’t this called market forces at one time or another? Capitalism? Basic business sense? I’m glad someone still has some.

Steve Dyson (11/06/2009 10:16:44)
In fairness guys, before this comment trail ends up being perceived as some kind of print dinosaur litany, there was joined up thinking with birminghammail.net staff as well. Despite the hold-back, the online boost in hits and forums that days were impressive too… a sort of joint victory for the brand effect, as people went direct to the site and prob. revisited it for the latest. I’ll be blogging on the actual lifts online later today.

Phil (11/06/2009 10:34:49)
This was an obvious business decision.
But it demonstrates just how unusual it is nowadays for a newspaper to have a genuine exclusive that is worth holding.
Indeed it is such big news that it appears as the lead story in the trade press.
Does this not show how far we have fallen – it’s as bad a car company announcing they are making new cars.
Actually, that’s a bad example.
I think a telling line in this piece is, “once it had been posted in its entirety on other websites”.
News is published everywhere now and as news organisations we have to be prepared to change and adapt to this fact, using everything we have at our disposal to make sure people still want to get their news from us – whether this is in a newspaper or on a website.

JP (11/06/2009 13:29:12)
The moral of the story? Jumped-up ad reps-turned-middle managers should be ingored on journalism decisions. Stick with people who KNOW journalism and you get a boost like this. Result!

old ad rep (11/06/2009 14:01:09)
I fully agree- ingore that ad rep. Stick with JP- the profiterole

Hot Metal (11/06/2009 15:08:49)
More of this thinking please. I’m always amazed that newspapers put almost all of their content online by lunchtime, or earlier, instead of delaying until later in the day

Uncle Bulgaria (12/06/2009 10:55:05)
Yes, well done Steve! Those extra 4,000 people buying the paper on that day will have no doubt bought it every day since and will be busy telling all their friends, the tens of thousands who’ve stopped buying the Mail over the past few years, what they’re missing too. Has anyone thought about the damage to the Mail website this will have done? Between you and Jeremy Dear, I think we’ve got this web threat solved. Well done all round. The joined-up thinking is quite telling, given the website wasn’t mentioned until the update

michael (12/06/2009 11:47:54)
As a postscript, there are too many websites like Twitter etc and blogs who exist only to break stories and don’t have the add-ons such as newspapers. The playing field isn’t level, but I don’t think we should bleat about it being unfair. So, get an exclusive and find a way to persuade the source to give you first go at it.

Steve Dyson (15/06/2009 18:34:48)
And your point is, Uncle B? Surely it’s time to look after readers who pay 42p a time for their print edition content? Sorry to sound so traditional, but trying to provide unique content that makes papers attractive to buy is part of the editor’s role.

Jimmy Cooper (25/08/2009 15:05:09)
Reading the Mail editor’s blog, it appears this wasn’t quite the ‘joined up thinking’ and ‘exclusive’he’d like it to appear. Seems the Express And Star had exactly the same story and ran it online before the Mail . . . rather forcing his hand, I’d say!