Newspaper Association of America
www.naa.org
Newspaper Web Sites Average More Than 67 Million Visitors Each Month in 2008; Web Audience Grows 8.6 Percent in Last Year’s Fourth Quarter
Average monthly unique audience figures for newspaper Web sites grew by nearly 7.3 million in 2008 to 67.3 million visitors, an increase of 12.1 percent over 2007, according to a new report by Nielsen Online for the Newspaper Association of America.
Monthly unique visitors during the fourth quarter of 2008 averaged 68.2 million, an 8.6 percent increase over the same period a year ago (62.8 million). The data comprise home and work Internet usage.
“Newspapers’ digital audience has grown 60 percent in the last three years as the newspaper Web sites continue to attract sophisticated readers who demand comprehensive news and information that no other medium can match,” said NAA President and CEO John F. Sturm. “With the presidential election and economy dominating recent headlines, consumers continue to rely on newspapers as their trusted media brand for highly accurate reporting on the events that impact us all, each and every day.”
For last year’s fourth quarter, 41 percent of all active Web users visited newspaper Web sites, with visits averaging 45 minutes a month. Users generated more than 3.2 billion page impressions on average, a 7.8 percent increase over the same period a year ago. To see data for previous quarters, please visit http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/NetRatings-Chart.aspx.
Generating Revenue Streams Through Digital Initiatives
On the revenue side, newspapers are seeing significant impact from their relationship with Yahoo!, a partnership that includes access to Yahoo!’s ad management platform, Apt, and advertising inventory in local markets.
READ FULL STORY
People Depend on Newspapers...
Posts
3 comments
Media groups have nobody to blame but themselves. Reporters and editors, alike, have shown utter contempt toward their readers who complain about errors in coverage. I, personally, have been insulted and had my own qualifications questioned when I pointed out serious mistakes in coverage. There is no point in talking to anybody in the media and trying to get corrections or, better yet, getting them to improve on their knowledge of certain subjects. Their refusal to learn, to research, to study, to gain some knowledge in certain areas shows either laziness and incompetence, or a refusal to learn and avoid making the same "mistakes." Over time, I have come to conclude that these are not mistakes but intentional distortions of fact. Corrections would admit that not only are there technical errors, but possibly a fault in the ideology of these people. They have felt immune to criticism. They have been abusive. They have suppressed the facts, distorted the truth and chosen to believe that they are the only gatekeepers of information. They simnply do not listen. Fine. Now that I have canceled all of the papers that I used to buy, refused to open their web pages and limited even my online downloads of wire service reports, I now seem to have their attention as I get repeated requests to come back. I never will. Their e-mails are deleted and they have no way of advertising to me through a newspaper. I warned and warned of this action for years. Many of them simply ignored the warnings while some editors openly mocked and derided me when I asked for changes in their coverage. OK. Laugh now. You have plenty of time in the unemployment line and I have absolutely no sympathy for you.
But ask one important question: why is is that the current economic meltdown was such a sudden shock and surprise? Why didn't any of these media geniuses see it? Where was the in-depth coverage and the investigative reporting? That only seems to happen whan ideology-driven partisans in the media want to attack their perceived political foes. Why didn't the media see 9/11 coming? Why didn't they see the financial meltdown on the horizon? Why did a peanut butter manufacturer escape scrutiny for so long that it was allowed to poison over 500 with salmonella? Why was it such a shock that Iran has now launched a satellite into orbit?
Answer to all above? Because the media is generally incompetent and has no real ability to do what used to be its primary job: to investigte, to probe, to enlighten, to inform. They have become irrelevant and not worth the cost of a single newspaper. It is a waste of time to read their material and, thus, a waste of good money. Now, they have not only lost respect but they have erased confidence. Nobody trusts the media anymore and they will have a huge, if not insurmountable task in trying to recover that respect and trust. They brought it on themselves and have nobody else to blame. They keep whining about the internet and other factors. No. It all comes down to content. They keep frittering away time and effort on fluff pieces and letting the important news either go unreported or doing a very poor job of covering it. They continually tell us that they only write to meet the demands of their readers. No. They choose to listen only to those with whom they agree, and THOSE are usually the same people who don't want to be confronted by hard realities and truth, especially if it intrudes upon their comfy notion of reality.
I no longer bother to advise the media when they make their "mistakes." I simply tell others about them, explain what is really going on in a photo of story, and discuss it with others outside of the media. There is no point in trying to talk to people who simply do not wish to listen to constructive criticism, so I don't bother. When they then whine about their troubles, I simply tun a deaf ear. Now, I am the one not listening. They had their chance to listen, and didn't. They became arrogant, cocky and dismissive. Not once have they ever thought of apologizing to their readers for taking them for granted, and now they wonder why those readers are gone. Ask this question, though: if these people cannot even accurately put their finger on the pulse of the problem within their own industry, to the degree necessaey to salvage it, why, then, should we have any confidence that they know what they are talking about when they evaluate other subjects?
I once was a daily reader of five papers ranging from local to international coverage. I now skim the local paper and ignore the rest for one reason - they have all degenerated into propaganda organs for the interests of their corporate owners.
Unless they begin to really address issues such as the lies that led us to war and the very real questions about what happened on 9/11 they will continue to self destruct. A good place to begin would be an examination of their own role in the suppression of those and similar stories and a purge of their own ranks at the very top.
But that isn't going to happen, because their purpose really is propaganda, not news. Many a reporter has found that out the hard way and been forced out of the profession with no place to go until now. With the advent of the Net, however, that changed as the cost of the printing press dropped to zero. Yes, quality suffers at the hands of many bloggers, but in the aggregate less than in that of the corp press.
You want to survive? Then take up your pen and turn it on your Masters.
News people should be less concerned about how history will judge a president and more concerned about how history will judge their biased and unfair political coverage from election 2008.
Post a Comment