MEDIA STUDIES
Maybe the Times will overtake its rival (though I doubt it). Meanwhile, its editor should tell the truth
STEPHEN GLOVER
In writing about the increasingly dirty price war between the Daily Telegraph and the Times I should declare an interest. I write a weekly column for the Telegraph. I hope this relationship does not predispose me as a columnist on the press in favour of that newspaper. I am in many respects a great admirer of the Times, and of its edi- tor, Peter Stothard.
Whether Mr Stothard, or his proprietor Rupert Murdoch, can claim more credit for the price-cutting strategy must be deter- mined by history. I fancy Mr Stothard rather thinks it was his idea, but I would be surprised if Mr Murdoch were inclined to give him all the glory. My point here is that it was an inspired decision. Price-cutting has proved for the Times the most effective form of marketing imaginable after every other form had failed. Since September 1993, when the paper cut its cover price from 45p to 30p, its sales have increased by some 140 per cent from 350,000 to 862,000.
I doubt Mr Stothard would argue that the Times has got much better during this period. It is in essence the same beast. The terrific improvement in circulation reflects the effect of price-cutting, which has dra- matically enlarged the paper's market. I was one of those who wrongly doubted whether this would happen. The manage- ment of the Daily Telegraph seems to have been of the same opinion, and in retrospect one can say that it would have been better to reduce the paper's price on the same day rather than wait nine months, by which time the Times had already gained many new readers.
But that is water under the bridge. The Times has closed the gap on the Telegraph, albeit while selling more cheaply. The dif- ference in price between the two newspa- pers has varied over the past three years; at the moment the Times sells for 10p on a Monday as against the Telegraph's 40p; for 35p between Tuesday and Friday in com- parison with the Telegraph's 45p; and for 50p on a Saturday in contrast to its rival's 75p. What we don't know, of course, is how many readers the Times would lose were it to raise its cover price to the same level as the Daily Telegraph.
But it has been a fine achievement, which is why I am so anxious that Mr Stothard should not be carried away by the euphoria of the moment. I quailed a little when I read his remarks in the Times after the sales figures for November had been pub- lished by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. `We are extremely pleased with a Novem- ber circulation of 861,931,' said the editor of the Times 'which has yet again narrowed the gap between us and the Telegraph to a record low since the war. Comparing the circulations of the two newspapers at full cover price, we estimate that gap to be a mere 100,000 copies.'
The Times only 100,000 copies behind the Telegraph! Let me try to explain Mr Stothard's thinking. I am sorry about all the figures which follow but, alas, the argument cannot be pursued without them. In November the Times did indeed sell an average of 861,931 copies a day, a new record. Of these 59,440 copies were 'bulk sales' or 'sold at a lesser rate'. So the Times sold 802,491 copies a day at 'full cover price', to use Mr Stothard's phrase. By con- trast, the Daily Telegraph's average daily circulation for November was 1,101,745. Of these 88,841 were sold at a lesser price, which means that 1,012,904 copies were sold at 'full cover price' — still some 200,000 more than the Times's equivalent figure.
But wait! Of these 1,012,904 Telegraph copies some 100,000 were sold via a new subscription scheme at a reduced rate. So Mr Stothard argues that these were not `full cover price' copies either, and that, once they have been taken into account, the Telegraph only sold some 900,000 at full whack, a mere 100,000 copies more than the Times. Hence his proud boast. The sig- nificance of full cover price, by the way, is that advertisers look down their noses at discounted copies, believing that they are less assiduously read.
Mr Stothard's case looks persuasive. Indeed, taken in isolation it is so. I don't really see how 100,000 copies sold by the Telegraph to subscribers at a reduced rate can be deemed to have been sold at full rate. The trouble is that the Times employs similar ruses which Mr Stothard has not taken into account. On Mondays, as I have said, the paper sells for 10p, and as a conse- quence circulation soars, sometimes up to 950,000. The effect of greatly subsidising readers on that day is to increase the over- all average daily circulation of the paper. Yet Monday sales figures are included by the Audit Bureau of Circulations as though they are perfectly normal.
This organisation appears to have got itself into a twist. It first told the Tele- graph's management that its new subscrip- tion scheme could be included in the full rate figures. Then, under pressure from the Times, it changed its mind, as a result of which it has been in receipt of a writ from the Telegraph, which published no official figures for November. The best, and fairest, way forward would be to classify both the Times's Monday sales and Telegraph's sub- scription sales as being sold at a reduced rate.
In that event many more than 100,000 copies would separate the two papers. Let us look at the Times's likely sales for December, which have not yet been pub- lished. The overall average daily figure will probably be about 750,000. (November's circulation was inflated as a result of an imaginative promotion which gave readers Eurostar tickets in return for vouchers.) If we deduct bulk sales and copies sold at a lesser rate, we arrive at a December figure of perhaps 700,000. Then let us take out Monday sales for the reasons already stat- ed. We would have an average of about 670,000. As for the Telegraph, its overall sales for December should be about 1,100,000. Remove 100,000 for lesser and bulk sales and another 100,000 for sub- scriptions and you are left with a figure of 900,000 — some 230,000 more than the Times's.
Forgive the numbers. My point is sim- ple. Politicians, captains of industry, even newspaper managements bend the truth. But journalists, still less editors, should not be seen to do so. I can understand Mr Stothard's joy. Perhaps one day his paper will really be only 100,000 copies behind the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps one day though I can't easily foresee this — it will overtake its rival. In the meantime, however, Mr Stothard should be sober, modest, and fair-minded, as befits his exalted position.
Previous page
