TM need to take the initiative

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jul/31/trinity-mirror-piersmorgan
The drip, drip, drip of revelations surrounding Piers Morgan’s time at the Mirror could, if the reports quoted by Roy are to be believed, be damaging to Trinity Mirror.
If the police and/or judicial investigations into the behaviour of tabloid newspapers over the last 20 years show that now-repugnant activities went on while he was in charge, there could be some severe damage to the group’s brands. Never mind the compensation to all the victims who might be found.
Morgan’s comments over the years haven’t helped. They hint of an arrogance that speaks of a culture of impunity redolent of Leona Helmsley, the millionairess who famously said only “little people” pay tax. I fear the police investigations may show the same about The News of The World and some other NI titles.
TM needs to grab hold of this issue and show that it’s on top of it by taking the initiative. As I said before, the review of systems and processes really looks too feeble — just not facing up to the real risk that needs to be quantified and dealt with. And, more importantly from an investor point of view, be seen to be dealt with.
Yes, apologies and payouts may be tricky, but the sooner they can get any of that, if it has to be done, out of the way, the sooner they can move on and maybe even portray the group as the honourable face of tabloid journalism (which fits well with the legacy of Hugh Cudlipp) and hopefully reap a revenue boost from advertisers and readers fleeing from NI titles tainted by the years of revelations to come.
If they can’t do that and worse comes out soon, Sly Bailey’s future could be in doubt. She knows how important the brands are and she’s proven herself to be pretty shrewd in the past, so expect action soon.

Combined print and web stats provide an interesting picture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/09/digital-media-abcs
Will Sturgeon’s work has, as Roy says, provided an interesting picture of how some of the national titles compare in their print and web channels.
But, as some of the commenters have pointed out, there are some methodological anomalies.
This would count more than once a print reader who’s also a web reader (as many News International titles subscribers are) or Facebook fan.
It also undercounts the print contribution because all titles have more readers than sales — through sharing of papers. So using the titles’ NRS readership would have been a better comparison with web users and Facebook fans and given some idea of total reach. That’s best measured by randomized qualitative and quantitative research.
This also looks at all web users and fans, but if you’re a UK advertiser selling products mainly in the UK you want to know how many of the Web readers are here, not, as with many of the Guardian and Daily Mail’s, abroad. Unless you have some way of monetizing them too, you need that breakdown.
The Facebook stats are of particular interest as they show a relationship commitment beyond casual sales, may hint at values and, combined with Facebook profile data, allow each title’s fans to be counted on the basis of demographic tools such as MOSAIC profiles, enabling better targeting of messages.
If they aren’t doing already, expect the media packs of the titles to include all this kid of thing in the future.

Councils’ advertising deals make sense

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/apr/06/council-run-newspapers-advertising
The resolution of the conflict between several councils and the publishers in their area over the publication of statutory notices and vacancies in council publications, rather than the publishers’ titles, seems to be a win-win.
While using their own titles to publish these essential pieces of information which council tax payers need to be aware of may have saved the councils money, a broader analysis might well have shown that using local established commercial titles might have led to them being read by more residents because the amount of time spent reading established papers was likely to be higher than that for council-produced ones. So it’s better for local democratic accountability.
It also won’t harm the relationship with the local press, to the benefit of both parties.
My one reservation is deals which give all the advertising to one group. It should be split among more than one, where possible, to ensure the messages reach as many residents as possible and ensure there’s no perception of favouritism and a cosy relationship with one title or group.
Helping to maintain local accountability through sustaining a free and independent local press isn’t a bad thing either.

Is owning quality titles a loss-leader for Murdoch?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-bskyb
I agree with Roy that there’s definitely something to this argument that Rupert gains influence in return for losses on the papers of record mentioned.
No high-profile person wants to be dissed by them.
But the mass circulation titles play their part too — by heavily influencing the perception of these people to their readers.
That’s why no politician wants to be in his bad books. No matter how hard they try to control their image, it’s how the mass media depict that tends to stick.