Yesterday, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that USA Today's circulation had fallen to an average 1.7 million for the six months ended Sept. 30 -- a decline of 3.9% from a year before.
But today, Corporate said in a regulatory filing that USAT's circulation had dropped by a steeper 7% during the third quarter vs. a year before. To be sure, GCI's third quarter ended Sept. 23, but that shouldn't have made much of a difference.
Can someone explain the conflicting figures?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
But today, Corporate said in a regulatory filing that USAT's circulation had dropped by a steeper 7% during the third quarter vs. a year before. To be sure, GCI's third quarter ended Sept. 23, but that shouldn't have made much of a difference.
Can someone explain the conflicting figures?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
Comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteFrom your posting:
USA Today's circulation had fallen to an average 1.7 million for the six months ended Sept. 30 -- a decline of 3.9% from a year before.
USAT's circulation had dropped by a steeper 7% during the third quarter vs. a year before.
Jim, not sure about this, but ABC may have different standards than GAAP.
ReplyDeleteNumbers may jump, between two standards.
This is why, when someone has they have the "facts" -- can be doubtful. Sometimes very doubtful.
Is the ABC figure the average for the entire six months -- or is it the average, say, for the week ended Sept. 30?
ReplyDeleteAnd the same question about the 10-Q figures: Are these the average for the three months, or for the week preceding Sept. 23?
Daily avg during the six months ending Sept 30.
Delete5:11 has it right.
ReplyDeleteLargest loss due to Hilton change, number may actually increase with the election and the new contract with Choice hotels in place.
Concerned about the number of cancellations due to the paper redesign and unusually soft single copy sales-both issues have cropped up since the redesign in Sept.
There is a lot that is good in the redesign, and Kramer and Callaway have the support of the staff.
ReplyDeleteBut, the body type of the redesigned paper is simply hard for anyone over 40 to read, and that's our core readership.
Those in charge of the redesign can spin all they want -- it's not a smaller point size, they say. For many readers, all that matters is that the paper is now simply too hard to read.
There's little reason to wonder why circulation is down. The question is: Is the new leadership brave enough and honest enough with themselves to acknowledge this fact and take corrective action.
Obviously you don't read the paper both the font size and color were changed last week.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty simple, 6 months does not equal a quarter. A quarter is only 3 months. So in the last 3 months they were down 7%, but for the 6 months it was 3.9%. So they are trending worse.
ReplyDeleteFigured all you geniuses would have figured that one out. Probably too blinded by your hatred for Gannett you just see conspiracy theories in everything.
6:34 -- try to read this --
ReplyDeleteThis is why, when someone has they have the "facts" -- can be doubtful. Sometimes very doubtful.
Today, our Midwest weekly hippie-newspaper "competitor," which has gone from 12 pages to sometimes 36 pages, only had 20 pages today, pre-election.
ReplyDeleteSome fucking "recovery." At this rate, it will take 25 years to get to the 2007 level.
A resdesign and blue balls wont revive usa today.
ReplyDeleteLets bring The Hunkster back.
ReplyDeleteHunke's Folly is still causing vast problems at Usa Today. Morale sucks. No one is accountsble. No one seems to be in charge. kramer and callaway rarely talk to any reporters and spend their time self promoting and attending World Series games. They need to make some serious changes in the newsroom besides rearranging the deck chairs and hanging out at the Hub, which is a huge fucking joke.
ReplyDeleteThe same lame, tired, uninspired managers continue to lead a band of lazy, naive, checked out losers. That's what needs to change.
8:47 Does this mean the ABC numbers are a more accurate reflection of circulation because they cover a longer period, and so smooth out seasonal variations?
ReplyDeleteIn other words, would the third quarter numbers capture too many weeks during prime vacation season -- a period when sales especially at hotels are presumably lower?
Bottom line: I'm trying to figure out whether the trend is getting better, worse or the same.
If the smart 6:34 would think instead of write he wold see that there is something missing in the numbers .The slide would be deeper in the previous quarter to add up to 7% from the previous year at the same time period .
ReplyDeleteDown is down folks. You can quibble over how much or which source, but down be down.
ReplyDelete