Newspapers with no advertising: do they exist?

[The idea]

To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a few noncommercial grants.

Source:
Consumer Reports

Is it important to have unbiased information ONLY if the information concerns products or services that one might buy?

 

[Rob Lister]

Is it important to have unbiased information ONLY if the information concerns products or services that one might buy?

I'm not sure I can parse that sentence.

 

[The idea]

Re: Re: Newspapers with no advertising: do they exist?

I'm not sure I can parse that sentence.

A periodical has a higher price, other things being equal, if the periodical contains no advertising. People are willing to pay that additional price to reduce the odds of bias. That is, they are willing to pay that additional price to reduce the odds of bias if the information is focused on the topics covered by Consumer Reports Magazine. Are people willing to pay that price to reduce bias if the information is focused on the topics covered by newspapers?

(Of course, in that question, I mean to refer to the topics covered by the articles in newspapers, not the topics covered by the advertisements in newspapers.)

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Newspapers with no advertising: do they exist?

A periodical has a higher price, other things being equal, if the periodical contains no advertising. People are willing to pay that additional price to reduce the odds of bias. That is, they are willing to pay that additional price to reduce the odds of bias if the information is focused on the topics covered by Consumer Reports Magazine. Are people willing to pay that price to reduce bias if the information is focused on the topics covered by newspapers?

(Of course, in that question, I mean to refer to the topics covered by the articles in newspapers, not the topics covered by the advertisements in newspapers.)

Hmmm. Interesting question. I'm still not really sure what you're asking though. It's too broad.

Would a clipping service constitute ad-free news?

side note: Our local tv news routinely does product placement and thinly veiled attempts to mask a business opening as newsworthy (if the business is an official "business partners in news" or somesuch). That's why I don't much watch them.

 

[tkingdoll]

Newspapers with no advertising? Well, the cover price of paid-for newspapers alone does not cover the production costs so advertising revenues are essential in order for those newspapers to exist. Many local newspapers are free and rely entirely on advertising revenue.

Paid for local newspapers perceive local, relevant advertising as an additional service to their readers rather than an interruption. A good example of this is recruitment advertising.

The cover price of a publication is not related to the amount of advertising it carries.

I worked for Trinity Mirror for many years, I know a lot about the newspaper and magazine industry so I make the above comments with some confidence.

I couldn't access the page you linked, I got a 'heavy traffic' error.

 

[The idea]

Well, the cover price of paid-for newspapers alone does not cover the production costs so advertising revenues are essential in order for those newspapers to exist.

Why couldn't the cover price be increased?

The cover price of a publication is not related to the amount of advertising it carries.

So a publication can switch to a policy of having no advertising and yet not need to increase the cover price?

 

[tkingdoll]

Why couldn't the cover price be increased?


So a publication can switch to a policy of having no advertising and yet not need to increase the cover price?

Cover price increases always result in a drop in circulation. Eventually the circulation might pick up again but usually only after increased marketing/advertising, which of course carries a cost.

No, if you withdrew your advertising you would go bust pretty quickly. What I meant was, a magazine that charges £3.50 does not necessarily carry less advertising than one that charges £1.50.

 

[Manny]

Paid for local newspapers perceive local, relevant advertising as an additional service to their readers rather than an interruption. A good example of this is recruitment advertising.

This is worth re-emphasizing. Newspapers are largely local institutions, even "national" papers like the New York Times. About the only exceptions are USA Today and (to a lesser extent) the Wall Street Journal. People often buy those papers just as much for the ads as for the other content. Who's having a sale? Who's offering a job? What movies are playing where? Lookit at all those grocery coupons.

Indeed, it's a big problem facing newspapers. Not only has circulation declined precipitiously in the past 15 years or so, but alternative means of reaching consumers (direct mail, the internet, cable advertising, etc.) mean that advertisers have less reason to reach the fallling number of paper readers, who in turn have less incentive to buy the paper, etc.

 

[crimresearch]

Consumer's Reports reduces bias by the way they test the products, the removal of advertising is an adjunct issue.

Just removing ads from newspapers wouldn't be enough to ensure the validity of what was being reported, there would need to be a methodology that could be checked and replicated.

I suppose someone could run the news equivalent of a refereed journal, or CU, with some alternative (no strings attached) source of revenue, but it would be awfully hard to reduce news to something that could be treated in an objective manner.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Cover price increases always result in a drop in circulation.

On the other hand, if you decrease the cost too much, that decreases readership, because the more people pay for something, the more they value it. If you pay $5 for a magazine (and I can't understand why you would), you're probably going to want to read it all the way through to "get your money's worth". So much of magazine pricing is based on getting people to value it, rather than just revenue. That's why, if you subscribe, they're willing to practically give it away compared to newstand prices (that, and elasticity and monopoly theory that I won't get into).

 

[joobie]

Cover price increases always result in a drop in circulation.

interestingly enough, the magazine maxim (and others of it's ilk) is easy to get a free subscription to (about what it's really worth). this is because it increases their circulation rate, which enables them to charge advertisers more, subsidizing more free magazines...

 

[tkingdoll]

interestingly enough, the magazine maxim (and others of it's ilk) is easy to get a free subscription to (about what it's really worth). this is because it increases their circulation rate, which enables them to charge advertisers more, subsidizing more free magazines...

I don't agree with that statement joobie, it would be illegal. Free, or 'voucher' copies are not allowed to be counted in audited circulation figures, because it would mislead advertisers. In the UK, circulation is audited by an independent organisation, ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) who are very strict about this. Only paid-for copies are counted.

If the publication is a freebie (like, say, the Metro newspaper), then the audited figure is the Verified Free Distribution, but you can't have a mixture of the two.



Art Vanderlay, I haven't seen any research that shows a drop in readership is relative to a cover price decrease, I'd be interested if you have any links. Readership is simply ABC or VFD multiplied by Readers Per Copy. Do you mean that the Readers Per Copy figure increases because a higher-priced magazine is more likely to be a 'keeper' and be passed around to several readers? I've only really seen this happen with niche market publications, and I wouldn't attribute it to the cover price.

 

[joobie]

i think you misunderstood me - these aren't free in the sense that you pick them up on the street. you have to call a number or fill out a webform for a year's subscription.

why an advertiser would be being misled by thaose circulation figures is a bit confusing to me - why should they care if it comes to your house free or not? x amount of people still get it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art Vanderlay, I haven't seen any research that shows a drop in readership is relative to a cover price decrease, I'd be interested if you have any links. Readership is simply ABC or VFD multiplied by Readers Per Copy.

Well, I didn't mean "readership" in that sense. Suppose that two magazines have the same ABC and VFD, but for one, most readers read it cover to cover. For the other, most readers look at one or two articles, then throw it away. They may have the same readership according to the official definition, but are they truly of the same value to advertisers?

As for research to back this up, no, I don't have any. But doesn't the very fact that voucher copies aren't included in distribution numbers imply that this is an accepted principle? Most magazines would be willing to give their magazines away, except that advertisers aren't willing to accept such copies as being "read". Newsweek, for instance, offers such a ridiculously low rate that I doubt it covers postage, let alone printing fees. But it's not zero, so they get to include it in their ABC number.

joobie

why an advertiser would be being misled by thaose circulation figures is a bit confusing to me - why should they care if it comes to your house free or not? x amount of people still get it.

The idea is that most people aren't going to pay for the magazine unless they're planning on reading it. Whereas if someone offers to give it to you for free, you might accept the offer, even if you have no intention of reading it. But it also goes the other way: if you pay for it, you're going to feel like you have to "get your money's worth", whereas getting it for free means that you don't feel like you've lost anything if you don't read it.

 

[aerocontrols]

Newspapers take in the vast majority of their income via ads.

The purpose of the cover price is essentially to prove to the advertisers that their circulation is being read.

Get rid of the advertisers and the price of a newspaper would skyrocket.

Here Newsday covers its own circulation fraud.

 

[Ryokan]

A communist newspaper in Norway, 'Klassekampen' (Class Struggle) is ad-free. (www.klassekampen.no)

Well, in theory, anyway. They have a few ads for books and non-profit organizations that support their cause.

 

[TjW]

Offhand, the only two commercial periodicals I can think of that take no advertising are the previously mentioned Consumer Report, and MAD magazine.

 

[Art Vandelay]

MAD used to be ad-free, but they started taking ads several years ago. It is interesting how little it was noticed. The first time I saw an ad, I thought it was a parody, and I was quite confused, because I didn't get the joke. I was rather disappointed to realize the truth.