Over 6/10 online newspaper readers only look at one page
The other day I commented on Columbia Journalism Review research showing that 88% of newspaper reading time (not readers) is in print and only 12% online. My take on it is that this reflects the different ways in which we read online and print papers.
More specifically, my assumption is that when we read a print newspaper we read the newspaper.
When we read an online newspaper we more often than not read the article…and then quickly click to somewhere else.
Malcolm Coles writing in the Online Journalism blog has some stats out today that support that argument.
Malcolm looked at UK national newspapers to figure out how many pages visitors actually look at. The average (mean) is 2.5 pages per visitor, with the Sun (4 pages) and Guardian (3.1 pages) doing particularly well.
However, at the same time the assumption is that the median would be much lower for the simple reason that 62.8% of users only look at one page.
So – there is a minority of committed readers who will read an online newspaper much like they would a print one, devouring several sections in one reading. But almost two thirds, the visit is purely functional: I’ve received a link via Twitter or email, or spotted something on an RSS feed, I read the article and then I either move onto something else….or I click on one of the related links.
Though their stats didn’t (in my opinion) quite support it, it does give some weight to the argument that the Newspaper Association of America tried to advance the other day when it talked about print advertising being the most effective form of advertising, for the reason that in print you have a captive audience who will stick around.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
I'd agree, most readers probably do shake out the fillers before reading the paper, but I'd still imagine newspaper reading is done in much more depth than online.
Perhaps my original assumption that print readers read the paper and online readers read the article isn't quite true, but a statement that print readers read the 'sections' is.
So I'll read the body of the newspaper, sports and travel and leave the rest.
Absolutely, the engagement trend is going downward, as we know it's a long term trend rather than a today / tomorrow thing.
And on the future of newspapers, I agree. I think print paper audiences will continue to shrink, some will close and the more specialised will be the ones to survive. But they'll be with us for another two decades yet.
Nice findings … but I would suggest it also applies to print newspapers as well. Most papers in the U.S. have strong cover sections and then wire fodder in the middle, and I believe (from personal experience and bias) that most consumers rapidly skim over the filler, if at all.
However we debate it, the data our agency collects by measuring direct responses from papers shows that costs per inquiry (CPI) are going up. For every $1,000 spent in print newspaper ads, fewer calls are generated. This could be a function of fewer readers, or less engaged readers, or both. Either way, the return on print is sliding down … and that more than anything is why advertisers are pulling dollars out of newspapers. Anyone measuring sales of the products advertised can read the writing on the wall.
My own forecast is newspapers won't die completely for 30 years — the older generation of 45+ grew up with papers, and they still like to read them. But the big ones (New York Times) and little weeklies will stick longer than the small city dailies in the middle. Those have become redundant and irrelevant, and their packaging with wire filling in the middle isn't enough to keep their audiences engaged.