Media Matters
Quality papers are thriving – thanks to their digital editions
‘No one can say how much longer the printing presses will continue to roll’
A few years ago, many thought the national Press was doomed. Newspapers would survive on the internet – where most of them would be free – but not, in the long run, in printed form.
Things haven’t worked out quite like that. It’s true that the print circulation of all titles continues to decline, a process that has accelerated during the pandemic because of the forced closure of some shops. But there has been a surprising development which will save at least some newspapers. A growing number of people are paying good money to read them on their tablets or smartphones.
Although some figures are a bit murky because publishers are increasingly secretive, it’s clear that several titles are now selling many more digital than printed copies.
Print sales of the Financial Times are around 100,000 a day, while it has about a million digital subscribers. The Times sells around 300,000 in print and has roughly 400,000 digital buyers. Figures for the Daily Telegraph are about 330,000 digital and 200,000 print.
While the print circulation of all titles has been badly affected by the pesky virus, the digital sales of several of them have risen during recent months. In some cases, the digital gain makes up for the print loss.
Digital, which used to be a dirty word for publishers, now brings a smile to many faces. It turns out that people will pay to read papers on a screen, provided that they resemble what they used to hold in their hands. Digital has, in an unexpected way, perpetuated the traditional form of newspapers, albeit in a different dimension.
The economics are attractive to publishers since in the digital world there are no printing, distribution or newsprint costs. Once you break even, the money flows straight to the bottom line. Imagine a digital title becoming profitable with 200,000 subscribers. If you double that number, your costs of production will remain unchanged since you don’t have to employ more staff, buy paper or incur distribution charges. Profits will therefore soar. It is a good business to be in.
Not all titles are benefiting equally. Largely because they are free on the internet – their business model being to build up vast audiences which generate considerable advertising revenue – the
Daily Mail and the Guardian have been slower than other titles in attracting digital subscribers.
On the other hand, the Mail (for which I should remind readers that I write a column) is a beast very different in print from online. From a slow start, since the beginning of the pandemic the paper has doubled its digital subscribers to about 80,000.
So far, the red-top tabloids – the Sun, Daily Star and Daily Mirror – are not cashing in on the digital bonanza. They all have cheaply priced digital editions which have attracted relatively few subscribers. The main reason for their lack of success is that they, and similar publications, are free online. Potential readers are reluctant to pay for material that is free in abundance on the internet.
What this means is that quality titles (with the exception of the Guardian) have been the main beneficiaries of the paid-for digital revolution. The Mail and the Guardian, which have largely put their faith in free websites, lag some way behind. The red-tops bring up the rear.
The lesson is that it’s hard for a paper that is free online to build up large numbers of digital subscribers.
Those who forecast the demise of the national Press in the internet age were over-pessimistic. All print titles will almost certainly continue to lose circulation, though once the pandemic has receded the rate of decline should be less steep. No one can say for sure how much longer the printing presses will continue to roll. Whatever happens, though, newspapers have some sort of digital future.
What an odd newspaper the Guardian is. It champions freedom of speech. Except when it comes to its own journalists.
Suzanne Moore, who was one of the paper’s leading columnists, has resigned. As a feminist and leftist, she conformed to most of its ideological beliefs. But she has strong views in the ‘trans debate’, believing that gender is biologically predetermined.
According to her account on the news website Unherd, whenever she referred to the issue in her column she was ‘always subbed out’. When she was finally allowed to write on the subject last March, her piece attracted a letter of complaint to the Guardian’s editor, signed by 338 colleagues.
She had protested that people who campaigned for ‘women to have separate spaces and distinct services on the basis of our biological sex’ were being ‘no-platformed’ and smeared as ‘transphobic’.
As she pointed out on Unherd, when he worked for the paper Seumas Milne reprinted a sermon by Osama bin Laden. That was all right. But when it came to expressing a mainstream view that is probably shared by 95 per cent of the population, Ms Moore was censored and then rebuked.
As I say, an odd newspaper.