Results matching “uk may circulat”

Guardian.co.uk is still the most popular UK newspaper website, with 20,622,063 unique users last month, compared to 20,499,858 in June. This may be largely due to the sports-focused coverage that the paper featured in that month, such as the Tour de France, Wimbledon and English Test cricket, reports Guardian.co.uk.  

Audit Bureau of Circulations Electronic (ABCe) figures show that Guardian.co.uk had a 28.4% increase in uniques since July 2007. Meanwhile, page impressions jumped by 1.8% to 186,430,603 in July.

Telegraph.co.uk ranks second, with 18,746,025 unique users in July, having dropped by 4.9% from 19,712,622 in June. Mail Online remains in third place with 18,705,552 uniques, a 16.8% growth from 16,015,211 in June.

Year-on-year, both Telegraph.co.uk and Mail Online experienced growth in uniques since July 2007, the figures being 108.5% and 57.7%, respectively.

Sun Online has a 69% growth in uniques from July 2007 and a 3% growth since last month, reaching 15,972,490.

Telegraph.co.uk had a decrease in page impressions from 151,857,375 to 140,318,137 while Dailymail.co.uk's page impressions surged to 143,587,842 in July from 119,483,455 in June. Mail Online, meanwhile, had 143,587,842 in July.

Times Online's and The Independent site's page views were at a record high of 123,978,303 and 27,768,695, respectively.

Independent.co.uk had a 9% plunge since last month in uniques, reaching 6,588,929 while Mirror Group Digital uniques decreased by 5% since June to 5,177,230.

UK users are more valuable in terms of advertising revenue. However, the ABCe figures show that UK audience decreased since June for Mirror.co.uk and Telegraph.co.uk.

Mirror.co.uk had a drop of 73,000 to nearly 3 million uniques in the UK, whereas Telegraph.co.uk had a fall of 80,000 to 6.5 million.

Guardian.co.uk's and Times Online uniques in the UK increased to 8.5 million and 5.9 million, respectively. The figure rose for Mail Online and Sun Online to 5.5 million uniques for both titles.

The figures are expected to have an explosive growth this month, following coverage of the Beijing Olympic Games.

Source: Journalism.co.uk, Guardian.co.uk

Following the traffic surge reported by telegraph.co.uk, when the site added more than 6 million unique users in just two months leading up to its May traffic report, others newspaper publishers are calling for increased transparency in collection of data for the Audit Bureau of Circulations Electronic certificates (ABCe).

The Joint Industry Committee for Web Standards (Jicwebs) will now review reporting practices and consider potential changes to the ABCe system.

Seven national newspaper websites currently report monthly website traffic: guardian.co.uk, Times Online, Sun Online, telegraph.co.uk, Mail Online, independent.co.uk and Mirror Group Digital.

"It is clear that many factors can play a role in how much traffic a website achieves. These include web management, marketing (including search engine optimisation and search engine marketing), seasonality and the news agenda," Jicwebs said in a statement.

One possible change to the ABCe methodology would be for all newspaper web domains to report monthly audits which contribute to their totals, and would be included in the reported figures. Under current regulations, publishers only have to declare the web domains that generate the highest number of page views that count toward monthly traffic audits. Other smaller sections of each national newspaper's website network do not have to be listed.

Source: guardian.co.uk

Since its relaunch April 1, Cosmopolitan.co.uk's web traffic has surged. According to Journalism.co.uk, the Cosmo site has increased the number of unique users visiting the site by 136 per cent in May compared to a traffic audit from October 2007 -- the most recent information available from the Audit Bureau of Circulation Electronic.

According to the Nedstat data used by Journalism.co.uk, the Hearst Digital site registered 415,165 unique visitors in May up from 176,385 users recorded by ABCE in October. Page views over this period also doubled from 2,388,532 in October to 5,131,472 in May.

Hearst originally set targets of five million page views and 500,000 unique monthly visitors by the end of 2008, said Hearst Digital managing director Alex Ballantyne.

"We're pretty much on track to achieve those numbers this month or next month when at the start of the year we said we'd try and achieve that by December. We're well ahead of the curve with Cosmo, it has been a fantastic response from the market," said Ballantyne.

Ballantyne credited the site's success to "a new SEO-friendly platform built specifically for the launch, improved knowledge of the importance of tagging for search amongst editors and substantial cross promotion through magazine and across its network of sites had contributed to the traffic gains," reported Journalism.co.uk.

The site's relaunch has added a host of new features, most significantly the online video service CosmoTV. The video channel features a mix of clips from "red carpet" events and shows in addition to in-house video, including "how to's" on hair and make-up.

Duncan Edwards, the CEO of NetMags, that creates most of the video content, said they originally considered getting content froma  third party, like Videolug, but decided to create original clips instead.

According to the Guaradian.co.uk, the Cosmopolitan relaunch tests the water for Hearst Digital, which will snow et about ramping up Allaboutyou.com, the portal for content from magazine titles House Beautiful, Coast, Prima, Good Housekeeping, Country Living and She.

Sources: Journalism.co.uk, Guardian.co.uk

In this section, John Zogby, CEO of Zogby International, and George Brock, World Editors Forum President and editor of the Saturday Times in the UK, comment on the results of the 2008 Newsroom Barometer. Both agree that the results show editors have opened to the new necessities of the digital age, while remaining strongly conscious of the possible threats to their newspapers and journalism.

(View the main results to this year's survey here.)

According to Brock, this year's survey points to the fact that "editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms," but this is "tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future."

The path is clear for many editors: integrate the newsroom, think multimedia, train or hire a team of multi-skilled journalists. So are the threats: lack of investment, lack of training, lack of cultural change.

In the face of these deep changes for the newspaper industry and its organization, editors may often face managerial resistance to undergo these investments. But media companies must be bold. Their editors, for the most part, are ready to be. Said Brock: "I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities."

For Zogby, who goes into more detail about the numeric results (see below), this year's results show that editors have adapted or are adapting to the current redefinition of the 4th Estate, the press, in light of the changes brought in part by the Internet.

"Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers," as was the case for the previous edition of the Newsroom Barometer, wrote Zogby.

Yet this optimism shouldn't hide the urgency for newspapers to rethink their model. "For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall.  The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how.  Editors now know the solution:  Innovate.  Integrate.  Or perish."

Read Brock and Zogby's full comments below.

Comments on the 2008 Newsroom Barometer by George Brock

Editors remain confident about a mixed-media future and have quietly got on with the business of integrating their newsrooms. The optimism is not universal and it is tempered by anxiety that newspapers are not investing enough in recruitment and training for the future.

Newspaper managements might reply that investment remains risky when it isn't yet clear where the income from digital publishing is supposed to come from. But newspaper businesses are made by content which creates and sustains demand. The first newspapers did not come about when someone assembled advertising platforms, distribution networks and hardware and afterwards looked for content to put into that system.

The sequence of events was the reverse. Somebody wants to tell as many people as possible something of interest or importance, discovers a sustained curiosity in that information or opinion and eventually a publishing operation grows up to supply the demand. The chain reaction is sparked by interest in the story, view, picture, interview, column, cartoon that's on offer. Without that first moment of ignition, nothing else happens.

You think this sounds a little basic? It is. But you would be surprised how often this simple reality is forgotten as today's media businesses struggle to adapt to a world in which digital technology is rewriting the economics of news publishing.

Online news and opinion has now been with us for long enough to see that no prediction about the future of news which is based on technology alone can tell us the future. Newspapers are not just ink marks on squashed trees: they are what people trust, they amuse people, in short they are a collection of ideas and information with which a reader forms a relationship. Where journalism - whether professional, citizen or any mixture of the two - creates that relationship, something lasting is born and can be sustained. You can see examples of success and failure both online and in print. As the first flush of online innovation and enthusiasm wears off, we can see more clearly that some of the online successes will grow very big indeed, but that only the best will prosper. Making information available - and the web makes it available as never before - does not make it wanted. Newspapers which innovate and adapt will also survive because their qualities are more important than the medium. Some of the failures in both online and print will be terminal.

I read the message of this year's Newsroom Barometer as an appeal from editors to their companies to be bold in the face of change and as a sign that they themselves intend to make the most of new opportunities. Most editors are clear that the essential qualities of good journalism can adapt to a new medium. They accept as a fact needing no further debate that their papers will now reach their constituency by several channels and not by one.

Redefining the 4th Estate: Opinions of the Editors by John Zogby

In the 550 years since the first pages of print rolled off the presses in the Bavarian town of Mainz, printed news evolved relatively unimpeded.  Even the invention and proliferation of radio and television failed to stymie the growth of newspapers, largely due to the ability of newspapers to provide more in-depth coverage.
    
The centuries-long hegemony of the ink and paper news model today faces its greatest threat--the advent of an independent and free Internet-based media.  This threat was evidenced at the height of the 2005 British elections with the publication of the 'Downing Street Memo' by The Sunday Times.  That short but potent document presented potentially damning evidence surrounding the planning in the run-up to the Iraq War, and while British papers seized the story, the leaked memo made only slight ripples in the American print media.  It did create, however, a surge within the rapidly developing blog community who used the lack of traditional media coverage as a call to arms.

Now, as the Internet struggles to define itself in the shadow of the Fourth Estate, the question remains: will these two mediums continue to battle for supremacy or will they find stability in an integrated symbiotic relationship? To help bring clarity to this question, Zogby International was commissioned by the World Editors Forum and Reuters to survey 704 newspaper editors worldwide for the second in a series of annual 'Newsroom Barometer Surveys.'

    Perhaps the most important finding to emerge from the 2008 survey is that editors remain optimistic about the futures of their papers.  As in the 2006 Newsroom Barometer, nearly all editors (84%) are optimistic about the future of their paper.  The editors surveyed are as aware of what the future may hold for their industry as they are unified in their recognition of the underlying threats and potential solutions.

The Future

    The majority of editors (56%) now believe that most news (print and online) will be free in the future--up from 48% in 2006.  Nearly two-in-three editors (63%) believe that within a decade the most common form of  news consumption will be some form of electronic media--whether online (44%), mobile (12%) or through newer electronic media like e-papers and tablets (7%).  Less than a third (31%) believe print will remain the most common form of consumption.

    The perception of editors with respect to the future is not limited to the news product itself.  The overwhelming majority (83%) agree that within 5 years their nation's journalist workforce will be expected to know how to produce content for all platforms (e.g., print, video, audio and web).  Still, perception of the future is but one dimension of the story -- the remainder is defined by the threats to the industry and  how editors address those threats. 

The Threats

    By-and-large editors agree on the nature of the threats posed to their industry.  The decline in youth readership (58%), the rise in Internet and digital media (38%) and the lack of editorial innovation (36%) all speak to the consensus that change is imminent.  These editors tell us their chief sources of pressure are from advertisers (22%), shareholders (20%) and political forces (19%).  All pressure, no doubt,  to confront the changing reality through innovation and integration. 

    On one issue editors paint a mixed picture--the current state of their newsroom.  For some (39%) circulation in the past year is up; for others (29%) it is down.  One-third of editors (33%) have added journalists, a quarter have lost journalists (24%) and for the rest (42%) the number of journalists on their staff remains unchanged from a year ago. 


The Solutions

    When a majority of editors (54%) report that they have an integrated newsroom, they may make such statements not necessarily based on the reality, but also out of necessity.  Regardless of whether integration has or has not occurred, nearly all (86%) agree that it will be the norm in the near future.  Editors also agree on the steps needed to address other threats.  Asked what investments they would make in their newsroom given the opportunity, the top two investments cited--training journalists in new media (36%) and recruitment of new journalists (31%)--demonstrate that editors are looking to make a commitment to the future.  And with the recognition that editorial innovation is needed, 69% of editors agree that opinion and analysis pages will play an increasingly larger role in the future. 


Yes, editors are optimistic about the future of their papers, but they are also aware of the potential danger on the horizon.  Less than half (45%) believe the quality of journalism will improve over the next year.  More than a quarter (28%) believe the quality will worsen; a finding reflected in the high level of importance editors place on the need for investment in training and recruitment. 

For these editors the future is self-evident and our survey shows that they see the writing on the newsroom wall.  The evolution of the 4th Estate is no longer questions of if, when or how.  Editors now know the solution:  Innovate.  Integrate.  Or perish.


Read Part 1: Presentation - main results, the integrated newsroom will be the norm
Read Part 2: Multimedia, multi-skilled and integrated
Read Part 3: The future of the press
Read Part 4: Who participated in the survey?
Read Part 5: Comments by John Zogby and WEF President George Brock
Read Part 6: Threats to newspapers, areas of investment, more results

Since the Financial Times integrated its newsroom in 2006 and moved into a new one in 2007, it has been among the few British newspapers to increase its circulation, ad revenue and profits. Changes in the editorial process resulting from integration included “storybuilding,” new work shifts and lunch-hour training sessions.

The aggressive UK newspaper market has embraced online news, making developments quick to stay ahead of the game. Editors Weblog has spoken to top executives at two quality and two tabloid newspapers to try and garner the key themes and learnings from potentially the most competitive newspaper market in the world.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, free press has not always been the norm in Russia. Yet newspapers have soared, and the market now counts over 400 daily titles designed for each and every taste.

Nowadays, nobody is surprised to find a couple of enlarged color pictures on the cover of their daily newspaper – as well as inside the middle-pages. In fact, readers would probably holler at a serious newspaper that doesn’t bother with graphic incentives and catchy visuals. Besides the reasons for this readers’ expectancy – evidently adequate pictures just make the paper look better – why have photos become essential in producing a quality paper? More exactly, how do today’s pictures contribute to making their newspaper not only look better, but be better?

Fashion designer Giorgio Armani’s cover for the Independent failed to achieve the success of Bono’s May edition.  Armani designed the September 21 issue in support of Bono’s charity Project Red.  Despite a cover featuring Kate Moss covered in black paint, the issue caused a spike in circulation of only 10-15,000 above average.

In response to this week’s cover story about the decline of newspapers from the best weekly in the world, The Economist, BBC Radio 4 chatted with Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger and his equal at the Independent, Simon Kelner to hear what they think about the future of the newspaper.

 The Editors' Weblog has compiled a provisional list of the newspapers that have printed some or all of the cartoons since 30 September 2005, date of publication of 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. Even provisional, this list is the most exhaustive on the internet, thanks to members of the World Editors Forum and to bloggers close to the EW.

The main conclusions are:

- to our knowledge, more than 130 national or local newspapers (excluding the student newspapers and online publications) published some or all of the 12 cartoons (sometimes just a pohtography) in approximately 50 countries . It also means that around 1,7% of the dailies around the world - 8,300 paid-for dailies according to World Press Trends 2005 - made the difficult decision to publish the cartoons.

- Europe was the continent where the most newspapers published the cartoons: at least 70 papers. It is not surprising that the Netherlands was the country most involved in the controversy (after Denmark)... a few months after the assassination of the film maker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist activist. Same thing in France after the veil debate and the November 2005 riots.

- Within Europe, the first publications to reprint the cartoons in January-February 2006 were in general right-wing publications, for example ABC in Spain, Die Welt in Germany and Corriere della Sera in Italy. Then more leftist publications followed suit, for example Libération and Le Monde in France.

- Surprisingly, Arab and Muslim newspapers were also involved in the controversy from the very beginning, with the first reprint on 17 October 2005 (see below)! More than 12 Arab and/or Muslim newspapers published the cartoons. The decision to publish provoked terrible consequences for the editors-in-chief of these publications. Same consequences for some directors of television in Sudan and Algeria. 

- How to define the position adopted by American, British, Canadian and Australian newspapers? Media responsability, political correctness or self-censorship? The most surprising is not the position defined in many editorials (from The New York Times to The Guardian), but this strange impression of unanimity and consensus: only three regional newspapers on more than 1,400 newspapers in the States and zero newspaper, but a student daily in the UK for taking the risk...

- And what in the rest of the world? Nothing. Almost the desert for the publication of the cartoons in the Americas (apart Brazil), Africa (apart South Africa) and above all Asia (apart New Zealand). As if this controversy was only between Europe and the Arab world and if blasphemy was still relevant in regions as Asia and the Americas: not only about Mohammed, but about all religious issues.

My conclusion: the geography of the publication of the Danish cartoons tells us a lot about our democracies: what is allowed, what is forbidden... and what is taboo. In fact, it's more geopolitics than geography!

According to accounts filed at the UK's Companies House, converting The Independent to tabloid format has cost Independent News and Media over 12 million pounds sterling. Group accounts for the company show outgoings of 6.3 million in 2003 and 6.1 million last year, both related to the tabloid conversion.

The latest Audit Bureau of Circulations figures have been released in the UK, showing a minor decline in sales of the new Berliner Guardian and a strong rise in The Independent on Sunday's circulation after its switch to a compact format.