Newspapers: Not All Readers Worth The Cost Of Wooing, Keeping

New York Times:

As the newspaper industry bemoans falling circulation, major papers around the country have a surprising attitude toward a lot of potential readers: Don't bother.

The big American newspapers sell about 10 percent fewer copies than they did in 2000, and while the migration of readers to the Web is usually blamed for that decline, much of it has been intentional. Driven by marketing and delivery costs and pressure from advertisers, many papers have decided certain readers are not worth the expense involved in finding, serving and keeping them.

"It's a rational business decision of newspapers focusing on quality circulation rather than quantity, shedding the subscribers who cost more and generate less revenue," said Colby Atwood, president of Borrell Associates, a media research firm.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[JJLoch]

I read the news online now. It's easier and I'm allergic to newspaper ink.

JJ :D

http://natureshows.blogspot.com/

[realitytrumpsbull]

Someday, they'll buy up all the papers, and it'll just be www.uspravda.com ....

[bn]

I just dropped the Sunday LA Times.
They have dropped/changed too many features too much over the last year or so, almost as if their operating philosophy was 'change for change's sake'. Too bad...

[wadenelson1]

Readers: Can't remember the last time newspapers offered more details, showed evidence of having done more investigative homework, and reporters asked tougher questions than Internet bloggers.