AddThis SmartLayers

Big audience growth for regional newspaper websites

Most regional newspaper websites saw an increase in their web audiences over the first six months of the year according to today’s figures.

With print circulations declining on all UK regional daily titles, newspaper bosses were looking to the multi-platform or ‘ABCe’ figures to provide some much-needed good news.

Johnston Press websites posted three of the biggest year-on-year increases in average daily unique users, with portsmouth.co.uk up 48.4pc, yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk up 46.8pc and yorkshirepost.co.uk up 38.7pc.

Among the other groups, shropshirestar.com saw its audience grow by 38.7pc, cambridge-news.co.uk by 32.5pc and manchesterveningnews.co.uk by 30pc.

Cambridge News publisher Iliffe News and Media said monthly unique visitors for its network of 22 local sites had grown by 34pc year-on-year.

Andy Gough, managing director of Iliffe Digital, said: “The growth in our online audience supports a wider move to increase the total reach that our combined print and digital publications have in each of our markets.”

“The focus of the past year has included a specific drive to bring unique and bespoke content to our websites as part of an improved service we are seeking to bring to both site visitors and advertisers. These figures provide welcome evidence that there is a new market out there for us to access.”

Newsquest said more than a quarter of visitors to its local media websites were using smart phone and tablet devices in June 2012 – up from 10.6pc at the end of last year’s January to June ABC reporting period.

Managing director of digital media Roger Green said:  “This is the 13th successive audited growth for Newsquest since we first published an ABC audit in May 2005. It’s been powered in particular by the cutting edge, web-first reporting and interaction tools being embraced by our newsrooms.

“These tools have been used to cover not only murder, mayhem and football transfers, but as the Olympic torch relay passed through Newsquest cities, towns and villages our audiences responded in their thousands as they engaged with our content through comments, tweets and other share tools.”

“Commercially, Newsquest’s digital advertisers are benefiting not just from our numbers but also from innovations in demographic, behavioural and contextual tools that get the right messages to the right people at the right time.”

The full list of figures, arranged by newspaper group, is as follows:

Iliffe News & Media Ltd
Iliffe News & Media Network 50,342 28pc
Cambridge News 22,560 32.5pc
Johnston Press plc
Johnston Network 560,721 29.3pc
Blackpoolgazette.co.uk 18,030 14.2pc
Halifaxcourier.co.uk 9,804 14.6pc
LEP.co.uk 20,316 18.2pc
Peterboroughtoday.co.uk 13,036 10pc
Portsmouth.co.uk 28,360 48.4pc
Scotsman.com 105,959 0pc
www.scotsman.com/jobs 4,076 3.4pc
Sunderlandecho.com 17,118 35.9pc
Thestar.co.uk 29,939 12.7pc
Yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk 36,997 46.8pc
Yorkshirepost.co.uk 21,340 38.7pc
www.jobstoday.co.uk 43,413 -4.7pc
Kent Messenger Ltd
Kent Online (KM Group) network 23,933 33.3pc
The Midland News Association
Midland News Association Network 70,474 28.5pc
Expressandstar.com 51,147 26.2pc
Shropshirestar.com 22,226 38.7pc
Newsquest Media Group
Newsquest Network 499,292 9.4pc
dailyecho.co.uk 30,437 17.4pc
eveningtimes.co.uk 18,416 -26.6pc
heraldscotland.com 41,565 -16.8pc
lancashiretelegraph.co.uk 24,754 11.4pc
newsshopper.co.uk 11,492 10.9pc
Oxfordmail.co.uk 14,635 17.1pc
Swindonadvertiser.co.uk 16,219 8.2pc
theargus.co.uk 25,009 5.4pc
theboltonnews.co.uk 17,151 20.9pc
thenorthernecho.co.uk 23,110 26.9pc
thepress.co.uk 23,949 26.9pc
thetelegraphandargus.co.uk 25,470 22.2pc
Northcliffe Media Ltd
Northcliffe Digital Network 347,319 6.3pc
thisisbristol 25,681 -4.8pc
thisisderbyshire 23,279 -6.9pc
thisisgloucestershire 22,080 -9.1pc
thisisgrimsby 15,473 3.5pc
thisishull 32,438 10.5pc
thisisleicestershire 27,967 4.6pc
thisislincolnshire 12,290 -11.8pc
thisisnottingham 28,991 -7pc
thisisplymouth 22,565 -4.6pc
thisisscunthorpe 7,121 -16.9pc
thisissouthwales 16,688 20.2pc
thisisstaffordshire 25,264 -6.8pc
Trinity International Holdings plc
Trinity Mirror Regional Network 538,152 14.9pc
www.birminghammail.net 39,469 24.8pc
www.chroniclelive.co.uk 35,063 23.5pc
www.coventrytelegraph.net 24,568 -3pc
www.dailypost.co.uk 15,686 23.3pc
www.gazettelive.co.uk 21,781 7.4pc
www.journallive.co.uk 15,693 10.2pc
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk 70,670 11.9pc
manchestereveningnews.co.uk 99,042 30pc
www.Walesonline.co.uk 54,819 14.6pc

 

 

20 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • August 29, 2012 at 3:27 pm
    Permalink

    Sorry, how is this good news? The websites are doing the damage and the better they do, the more damage they cause. They DON’T MAKE MONEY after you factor in costs (staff, print reporters, rent, IT etc). And just to put the boot in, they give people (like me0 a reason NOT to buy the paper.

    Imagine any other industry … “right guys, let’s introduce something new which makes no money standing on its own two feet, probably never will (no one else has made it happen) and will take money away from the one thing we do that is profitable”

    Anyway, the Northcliffe sites aren’t even doing well – eight out of 12 show a decline. (not mentioned in your report, I note)

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    Permalink

    Northcliffe sites are the only ones making money, apparently. First group to make digital profit. Not enough to offset print decline, granted, but heading in right direction.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    Permalink

    Down South
    You just don’t get it … they DON’T make profits unless you discount the costs of emplying print people, print overheads etc, without which there would be no website. Tell you what, let them pay their own rent, pay their own overheads (IT etc), pay for 30+ journalists, pay their expenses, pay for their company cars … then tell me if the website makes a profit.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 9:07 am
    Permalink

    Freddie, If you compare the costs of running a web server to that of running an expensive print operation I think you might find you are on dodgy ground.

    How about some facts and figures to back up your argument instead of conjecture?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 9:40 am
    Permalink

    And barely any of the visitors looked at the ads on these sites.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 11:09 am
    Permalink

    Dave

    The point is that without the print operation (journalists, commercial people etc) the websites can’t operate. Where would the news come from? Who would sell the ads? All these people incur big costs. You can’t ignore the print costs when looking at the web costs.

    The danger is that the web destroys the print then suddenly the web thing is no longer viable.

    It’s not about conjecture … if the websites stood on their own, there would be no need for print.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Permalink

    It’s good to see the “New Management” @ Northcliffe has carried on in the same old way!
    Net losses for NM web sites – oh dear,

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    Permalink

    Marcus I’ll put my cards on the table I work in Digital, so i’ve got a vested interest in this, but the picture you and Freddy paint doesn’t sit well with my experience.

    If anything in our group, digital is pretty much standalone and the corporate and financial relationship between print and digital is far more complicated than most people here give credit for.

    The real problem for newspaper groups is the decline of their own expensive, staff heavy business model in relation to competition from the web and the economic slowdown, and I think whether or not newspapers have free content on their own websites doesn’t really count for that much in the long term.

    If newspapers stopped their content going on websites tomorrow, you ain’t gonna find people putting down their mobiles, tablets and pc’s and flocking to the newsagents again, they’ll just point their browser somewhere else.

    All you then do is kill your digital offering as well, as people then go looking for jobs, motors, homes etc online go to established competitors, you’d make the situation far worse not better.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    Permalink

    Dave

    OK, let’s imagine this scenario … your newspapers all close down tomorrow. Gone, totally.

    What does that leave you to think about ..

    Content: Instead of a large (ish) team of reporters, you might have one or two. All those salaries which were paying people to give you, effectively, free content (plus their expenses/cars/mobiles etc). Where does the content come from now? Please don’t say citizen journalists.
    Premises; Instead of using a corner of the newspaper office, you need to rent your own place
    IT: Instead of using group IT services, you need your own (plus equipment etc)
    Bills: Instead of using the group offices, you use your own but suddenly you have phone bills, electricity etc
    Legal: Your group probably has an arrangement with a legal firm – you will have to pay the big retainers and ongoing costs
    Sales: You have to pay all salaries of your sales team
    Plus all the other numerous costs associated with running an office, employer contributions etc.

    So, add all that up. Are you really standing alone?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 30, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    Permalink

    Dave. Seriously. A “pretty much standalone” website? You’re not even close. Besides, standalone is an absolute. You can’t be pretty much standalone. Just like you can’t be a little bit dead.

    I admire your positivity but those of you who work “in digital” are living in a world subsidised by a dying business model. Great, so web readership went up. How many of them spent any money with you or an advertiser as a result? I know you won’t tell me but you know it’s not many.

    Now, of course, all this can change. And for the better. But only if you can generate high-quality, relevant, content for readers.

    I long for the day when your digital product makes enough money to stand on its own two feet, I really do.

    I long for the day when your digital product makes enough money to afford an editor, news editor, reporters and photographers of its own. I really do.

    I long for the day when your digital product makes enough money to pay people to sell advertising space to clients who see a return on their investment in you, I really do.

    But the fact remains, while you give the news away for free, fewer people will pay for it. I’m not naive enough to claim closing your site will have readers flooding back to print. It won’t. That ship has sailed.

    Your problem is raising income from your product: news. Changing the distribution method cuts costs, but in the end quality, professional, newsgathering is expensive. Without content you have absolutely nothing.

    By all means get back to me with the suggestion that web revenue will rise enough to cover your costs in “the future”.

    By all means get back to me with a way to make money from people who currently use your product but don’t spend a penny with you or your clients.

    By all means get back to me with some good news, because I’d really, genuinely, be interested.

    Talk soon Dave.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 8:33 am
    Permalink

    Guys you might find this article interesting

    http://ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5377

    If the situation Marcus describes ever comes to light it would be a dark day, but I don’t think it would have to mean the end of digital too, but you’d have to have a radically different business model and radically rethink the way you do news.

    And if the market decided it didn’t want to pay to support lets say 30 journalists writing about local news in print, why would you try and employ 30 journalists on a website? That wouldn’t make any sense at all.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 10:15 am
    Permalink

    Dave

    First of all, you don’t address the overheads issue.

    Second, Annarbor.com is still a newspaper, out twice a week. Its business model is to pay people a third of what they were on before … can’t see that taking off here.

    I agree that if the market doesn’t support 30 print journalists, it won’t support 30 web. But likewise, a city cannot be covered 24/7/52 (on duty and on call) properly by 2 or 3 web reporters.

    Please try to be realistic – web news services (other than maybe in finacial niche markets) DON’T PAY

    I quote:

    Charles R. Eisendrath, director of the Knight-Wallace Fellows in journalism at the University of Michigan, says that although the News “was never the New York Times” and had been on the decline for some time, it was an adequate, serviceable local daily. But AnnArbor.com, he says, has proven to be an insufficient substitute and has had “a terrible effect” on the city.

    “If you pay people a third of what they were paid before, and you have a third as many of them, the results aren’t exactly rocket science,” Eisendrath says. More specifically, he says, the result has been anemic coverage. “If this is the model for the future of traditional news organizations, they need to begin calling themselves something else. Not news organizations.”

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 11:01 am
    Permalink

    I work in Digital Media and will accept that as it stands right now we can’t live without the print model – not by a long way. That doesn’t mean it is always going to be the case though.

    What I would like to see is for a paywall to go up on all our sites if for nothing more than to get the reporters to shut up for once! I’m sick of hearing them whine on – it hurts my ears.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    Michael

    Thanks for a bit of sense … the worry is that the newspapers will go out of business (in part because of the websites) before the websites are self sufficient, leaving us with nothing.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    Permalink

    Working within one of these paper groups as a reporter, I have mixed feelings about the improved web hits.

    In my experience, the increase in web hits is almost entirely facilitated by reporters uploading much more content to the web – breaking news, extra content from the paper and more videos. Inevitably, that’s meant more work.
    It’s a little galling to hear your bosses talking about their renewed focus on “digital growth” while they continue to cut editorial jobs across the company and put none of that money back into the web as a product.

    But, despite the fact it has meant more work, naively there is a satisfaction in reaching more people on the web and seeing the comments section grow.

    Yet, despite all this, I’m under no illusions these hits mean local papers are on the road to recovery. Continued lack of investment and redundancies is hardly the business model for a company with faith in its product. It more closely resembles asset-stripping than planning for the future.

    And eventually a point will be reached where editorial can be stretched no further and growth tails off. Then what?!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Permalink

    A paywall is the only answer but to initialise a paywall would mean a real shift in investment towards digital media, which as A states simply isn’t happening. As what we’re providing to readers is free of charge it comes last in a long list of requirements when it comes to investment and most free newspaper websites couldn’t charge for their content as they stand currently.

    Extra staff, improved infrastructure and a shift in focus would all be required before a paywall could even be considered so it’s not as simple as just asking people to pay.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    Permalink

    Didn’t JP try paywalls and they failed miserably? Doesn’t the evidence show they neither help the newspapers nor the websites?

    Why not concentrate on building different web content like video, rather than slavishly replicating what goes in the paper.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 31, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Permalink

    Why does it say “The full list of figures, arranged by newspaper group, is as follows”?
    It isn’t a full list. I wanted to see how the Scarborough site is faring but it isn’t listed.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 3, 2012 at 9:20 am
    Permalink

    I always laugh at the argument which says …”if local papers didn’t have a website, ‘someone else’ would do it.” This is plainly ridiculous. ‘Someone else’ might try but they wouldn’t be able to do it properly at all, not without employing lots of people and I think we’ve accepted that’s not a business model..

    My view is that it would be a reasonable risk for local papers to simply abandon their websites (or maintain a simple web operation for police emergencies, that sort of story). Denying people free news just might make people buy the paper, maybe not every day but certainly occasionally. I’m a journalist and I don’t buy my local paper, although I do check up on clients etc online.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 4, 2012 at 10:38 am
    Permalink

    Michael is right. Digital can’t survive without the print model at present and, for the Northcliffe sites which have lost traffic, it appears to be on the back of reduced paginations and changes in frequency (Bristol losing it’s Saturday edition and both Scunthorpe and Lincolnshire going weekly).

    However, don’t forget the overall 30ish per cent increases in unique visitors year-on-year for the previous years since the creation of the standalone model (financially, not editorially).

    And where the weekly papers which now must sell up to 25,000 copies a week (Scunthorpe & Lincolnshire), for the websites to still be getting more that 7,000 and 12,000 DAILY unique visitors, respectively, is quite an achievement.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)