The L.A. Times' disappointing digital numbers show the game's not just about drawing in subscribers

[brooklynite]

Nieman Lab

When Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the Los Angeles Times out of its tronckian purgatory last year, it was an occasion to consider where it sat on the increasingly barbell-shaped spectrum of American newspapers.

You see, other than the two nationals aimed at niche audiences — The Wall Street Journal for business types, USA Today for people staying at the Days Inn by the airport — pretty much all American newspapers used to be recognizably in the same business. Take a look, for instance, at print circulation numbers for an assortment of big dailies in 2002, before the web hath wrought what it wrought:

Newspaper 2002 print circ
The New York Times --- 1,113,000
Los Angeles Times --- 965,633
The Washington Post --- 746,724
New York Daily News --- 715,070
Chicago Tribune --- 613,429
Newsday --- 578,809
Houston Chronicle --- 552,052
The Dallas Morning News --- 521,956
San Francisco Chronicle --- 512,129

You can see The New York Times at No. 1 and The Washington Post at No. 3 — but the L.A. Times slots solidly in between them. Closer to the top spot than to the Post, actually. And the other metro papers have circulation levels vaguely commensurate with the size of their cities and markets — smaller than the coastal giants, sure, but still big.

Now look at the same table, but with a new column added: how many digital subscriptions each newspaper has today.

Newspaper --- 2002 print circ --- 2019 digital subs
The New York Times --- 1,113,000 --- 2.7 million
Los Angeles Times --- 965,633 --- 170,000
The Washington Post --- 746,724 --- 1.7 million
New York Daily News --- 715,070 --- 27,000
Chicago Tribune --- 613,429 --- 100,000
Newsday --- 578,809 --- 25,000
Houston Chronicle --- 552,052 --- 37,000
The Dallas Morning News --- 521,956 --- 72,000
San Francisco Chronicle --- 512,129 --- 57,000

[SCantiGOP]

1. I just removed LA Times from my Apple News feed

because they are behind a paywall.

[brooklynite]

2. Why can't reporters just work for free?

What do you pay for news gathering? I subscribe to four daily papers.

[SCantiGOP]

6. I subscribe to several magazines and two newspapers

In print but with ability to read on-line.
I prefer to choose which sources I will pay for and read. I will not pay to get through a firewall to read an occasional article linked in an Apple News Feed, which was the point of my post.

Is that OK with you?

[madinmaryland]

12. So I pay to get thru the firewall and are still bombarded by ads in every article.

Hmmmm.

[USALiberal]

3. Lol, "I want free stuff"! Nt

[BootinUp]

4. I'm one of them LAT digital subscribers. I just think

It’s going to take a little more time. They only just rolled out new improvements.

[Zorro]

10. I currently subscribe to the LA Times digital edition

but I'm going to drop them, because they limit one to read their annoying "eNewspaper" edition that's created primarily for mobile devices instead of reading the news on their web site, which I prefer because it's easier on my eyes.

I have digital subscriptions to both the NY Times and WaPo, and they don't have that limitation.

I also had a San Diego Union-Tribune subscription (same owner as the LA Times), but I dropped them because they scrub anti-Trump/anti-Republican comments from their articles.

[BootinUp]

11. You should be able to login via browser

I have done that b4.

[Zorro]

13. Yes one should be able to login via browser

but "unlimited digital access" to their eNewspaper apparently doesn't include browser access.

[BootinUp]

14. Just confirmed that I can log in via browser

Try clearing cookies, and trackers from your browser.

[Zorro]

15. I clear their cookies quite often

I called the LA Times customer service number last summer and they said that's the way it is -- unlimited digital access to eNewspaper doesn't include browser access.

[BootinUp]

17. well i dont have any special account afaik.

signed up in March.

[matt819]

5. It's probably not critical. . .

but what are the 2019 print circulation figures.

And what are print and digital numbers for right-leaning publications?

[MineralMan]

7. Comparing 2019 to 2002 doesn't make a lot of sense, really.

In 2002, online access for newspapers was in its infancy, really.

We need to see the 2018 or 2019 paper circ. numbers for this to make much sense at all.

Too big a time gap makes the comparisons sort of useless.

[MineralMan]

8. The NYT and WP are more or less our national newspapers of record.

The LA times would like to be, but is not. It had a high paper circulation in 2002 because, well, Los Angeles. But, it's not widely referenced on a national basis, really.

So, it's not surprising that those two papers would have the largest online circulation, I think.

[tenderfoot]

9. I subscribe to the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, hometown paper and Vanity Fair

eom

[Hortensis]

16. We're from LA 20 years ago and take LA Times digital. It's a fine

newspaper and glad to see its circulation as #2. But it's my husband's favorite. Since we don't live in SoCal, I moved long ago to the NYT because it's a better national and international paper and for its excellent investigative journalism. If the NYT wasn't corrupt and working to defeat Democrats, I'd still be taking that in preference. I dumped it for the WaPo, which has excellent investigative journalism and a strong DC orientation, but can't replace the NYT for broad coverage.

I'd love to see the LA Times fill the big need that the NYT has betrayed.