“Readership” Items

Changing Needs of Newspaper Readers, 1978

In 1979, Ruth Clark, noted newspaper researcher, authored a thoughtful report for the American Society of Newspaper Editors titled “Changing Needs of Changing Readers.” Commissioned during a time of declining readership, the report explored a question that still resonates: why were people turning away from newspapers It was based on focus groups across 12 U.S. and Canadian cities and uncovered a subtle but growing disconnect between editors and readers. The issue wasn’t just about what was in the paper—it was about how people felt about their newspapers. (Summary written by AI)

The Social Contract Was Fraying

Readers no longer saw editors as all-knowing gatekeepers. In fact, many questioned why faceless editors still dictated the “important” news. What they really wanted was relevance: stories that spoke to their personal lives, their neighborhoods, their struggles. “I live in one world—they live in another,” one reader lamented.

From Mandarins to Humans

The report described a “reader-editor gap” that went far beyond content. Readers wanted to see and feel the people behind the bylines, a shift toward what we might now call personalized journalism. The cold objectivity of traditional reporting began to feel alienating in a media world increasingly influenced by charismatic TV anchors and talk radio hosts.

Rise of the “Me” Generation

The study captured a cultural pivot from civic obligation to personal fulfillment. Readers didn’t just want to be informed—they wanted to be helped. They craved guidance on how to live well, manage money, understand relationships, and yes, have fun. Traditional hard news still mattered, but only when balanced with accessible, emotionally resonant content.

Format Fatigue

Even then, readers complained newspapers were too hard to navigate. They wanted summaries, indexes, modular content, and less repetitive reporting. One participant nailed it: “I can wait till the story is over and then find out what is really important.”

The Real Lesson: Listen More

The report didn’t offer a silver bullet—but it validated a method: direct, honest conversations with readers. Focus groups were a prototype for what we now know as audience engagement strategies. For a print industry historically rooted in one-way communication, this was radical.

Though this report is nearly half a century old, its themes resonate in today’s digital landscape. The need for human connection, relevance, transparency, and flexibility continues. As media evolved from analog to digital, the core need hasn’t changed: people want their stories told with care, by people who understand them. Readers want to see themselves in the media they are using.

Newspaper Circulation Report, 1988

It is striking how far circulation numbers have fallen.  I found a page from Editor & Publisher from 1988 that reported on the top 25 newspapers in the U.S. in terms of circulation. The decline is striking. Here’s the start of the story:

By Mark Fitzgerald
When the year began, numerous newspaper advertising analysts declared that 1988 would be a banner year.

Midway through this lackluster year, they revised their projections downward.

Much the same thing seems to be happening with newspaper circula­tion, according to the results of the latest FAS-FAX report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

When the FAS-FAX for the six months ended March 31, 1988, came out, daily circulation seemed a special bright spot in a dull year.
With the release of the FAS-FAX for six months ended Sept. 30, 1988, however, the other shoe has dropped.

Here’s a look at five newspapers, 1988 versus 2023-24 daily circulation data:

Newspaper                1988                Most Recent               Decline (%)
Wall Street Journal 1,869,000       609,654     2023      ~67%
New York Times       1,116,334         296,329     2023      ~73%
Los Angeles Times   1,112,344         118,760       2023     ~89%
Chicago Tribune       1,098,127          73,000       2024    ~93%
Arizona Republic      320,409            67,510        2023     ~79%

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

         
         
         
         
         
         

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

 

Attracting and Retaining Readers, 1986

For as long as I was in the newspaper industry, I’ve heard the refrain “we need to attract new and retain our current readers.”

Mostly, in the “olden days” that meant a new promotion or some kind of circulation push [cut the prices and retain them when the full-cost renewal hits].

The American Press Institute held a seminar in November 1986 and invited 21 editors, publishers, circulation directors and other executives to focus on:

• Meeting the needs of a changing newspaper audience.
• Increasing household penetration.
• Reader retention.
• Fresh methods for marketing and promoting the newspaper.

While the report on the conference focus on aspects of the newspaper industry that are revenue driven — advertising and circulation– there was some discussion about improving the overall editorial product.  From the section titled “Relating to Readers,” Chris Anderson, editor of the Orange Country Register urged an upgrade of the quality of content:

“Quality sells newspapers. But it doesn’t come easily, and it doesn’t come free.” It is increasingly apparent, he said, that newspapers must make long-­term investments in editorial content that arc not immediately cost-­justifiable – but will have long-term benefit. He listed these as primary ingredients in a newspaper’s quality: 

  1. We are specific to our own set of readers. We “belong” to them.
  2. There are things for lots of different readers. Our readership is a coalition of special-interest groups
  3. We make things easy to find and to read. Consistency and packaging arc especially important. 
  4. A good newspaper is compelling and personal. “Readers have no obligation to take the rubber band off. It’s easier to watch TV.”
  5. We involve our readers, and help them tell their stories.
  6. Professionalism is painstaking attention to detail.

There was one page on the potential of computers, at least when it comes to circulation, to help newspapers understand their market and where their subscribers live.

The booklet about the conference has recommendations are well past their “sell by” date. The marketplace has upended advertising and circulation revenue streams. And that left many newspaper readers, or the remaining newspaper readers, high and dry.

Here’s a summary generated by AI about the seminar
Attracting and Retaining Readers: What the Industry Was Saying in 1986

? American Press Institute Curtis Seminar, November 1986
? Reston, Virginia

In the fall of 1986, a select group of newspaper editors, designers, and media scholars gathered at the American Press Institute for the Curtis Seminar on Attracting and Retaining Readers. The purpose: to examine declining readership trends and explore strategies that might reverse them. Though digital disruption had not yet arrived, there was already a strong sense that change was needed.

The seminar materials read like a cross between a strategic workshop and a newsroom therapy session. Titles such as “Understanding Reader Behavior,” “Packaging the Paper,” and “Reversing the Downward Trend” reflect a growing awareness that traditional newspaper practices were losing traction with modern audiences. Participants tackled tough questions about design, content hierarchy, service journalism, and how to make newspapers more relevant—especially to younger readers and women, demographics that were already disengaging.

There’s a notable urgency in the recommendations: trim excess verbiage, lead with utility, give readers navigational tools, and design with intention. The themes of clarity, connection, and relevance emerged again and again, with a shared belief that newspapers needed to better align with the everyday concerns of readers—not just editorial priorities.

What’s especially striking is the vocabulary of experimentation and evolution—terms that feel contemporary but were clearly part of the industry’s discourse nearly 40 years ago. Participants acknowledged that reader expectations had changed, and that the paper’s design, structure, and tone needed to evolve as well.

The Curtis Seminar offers a revealing snapshot of a profession in self-reflection. It shows that even before the rise of the internet, journalism leaders were grappling with how to hold onto their audience, adapt to shifting habits, and make newspapers more useful, relevant, and readable. Many of those questions remain just as pressing today.

Social Contract with Readers, 1978

starting to worry editors everywhere: why were readers pulling away from their newspapers? Clark, working with Yankelovich, Skelly and White, ran focus groups with more than 120 regular readers, occasional readers, and non-readers across 12 U.S. and Canadian markets — competitive and non-competitive, chain and independent, morning and evening. Editors observed the sessions and joined the conversation partway through. The result, published as “Changing Needs of Changing Readers,” became one of the defining reader-research documents of its era. Clark called the underlying issue “the new social contract” between editors and readers — and the report set out to describe what had broken in it.

We know very little about the subtle forces that seem to be weakening the emotional ties of many readers, making newspapers less wanted, less needed or, in extreme cases, resented.

  • The social contract was fraying. Readers no longer accepted editors as the Mandarins who simply decided what mattered. They wanted relevance — stories about their own lives, their own neighborhoods, their own problems. “Editors live in one world — and I live in another,” one reader put it. “They’re worried about the Middle East, and I’m worried about meeting my bills.”
  • From gatekeepers to people. The report described a reader-editor gap that went beyond content into feeling. Readers wanted to know who was talking to them — a shift toward what we’d now call personalized journalism, driven partly by a TV-anchor culture where credibility rode on personality rather than institutional authority.
  • The “Me” generation arrives. Clark’s groups captured a cultural pivot from civic duty toward self-fulfillment. Readers still wanted hard news, but they also wanted help — with money, health, relationships, daily coping. Self-oriented features paired with hard news, the report concluded, were becoming the real key to readership.
  • Format fatigue. Even in 1978, readers said newspapers were hard work to get through. They wanted indexes, summaries, and less repetition of running stories. “I can wait till the story is over,” one reader said, “and then find out what is really important.”

  • The real recommendation: listen. The report offered no silver bullet, but it validated a method — direct, unscripted conversation with readers through focus groups, a forerunner of what’s now called audience engagement.

Nearly half a century later, the through-line still holds: people want to be told the truth by someone who understands them, and they want to see themselves in the coverage. That need didn’t change with the shift from analog to digital — if anything, it got louder as the news landscape fragmented. 

How Consumers Spend Their Media Day

How consumers use media has always been an interesting topic. However, it never really got the attention of those at the top of newspaper organizations.  One of the better studies was this one:

The Center for Media Design at Ball State University conducted the Middletown Media Studies in 2003-2004. These investigations tracked the ways in which ordinary Americans residing in and around Muncie engage with the many new forms of media available in the twentieth century. More details are available in the CMD Reports and White Papers listing.

Here’s a copy of a paper about the study in the International Digital Media & Arts Association Journalism from Spring 2004.

Here’s a link to Ball State’s documents about the project.

Archival transcript of Hazel Reinhardt's newspaper readership demographics talk at the 1999 APME Conference in Memphis

Changing Readers: A Demographic Warning to APME, 1999

This is a set of excerpts from a talk given by Hazel Reinhardt at the 1999 APME Conference in Memphis. Reinhardt was president of Hazel Reinhardt Consulting Services and the former Minnesota state demographer, and her subject was the one part of the newspaper business that could be forecast with confidence. The document notes that copies of her slides were provided courtesy of the Northwestern University Media Management Center, and that the boldface in the transcript was added by Kees.

Her opening argument was that demographics, unlike almost everything else the industry worried about, were not a matter of speculation.

The numbers I’m going to show you for the next 10 years, outside of some major catastrophe, are the numbers that will be realized in the United States. There is almost nothing we can imagine that will happen to change that.

The readership numbers were the sobering part. Weekday readership had fallen from 78 percent of adults in 1970 to 59 percent; Sunday had barely moved, from 72 percent to 69 percent. Education and age were the two powerful predictors — 71 percent of college graduates read on a typical weekday versus 40 percent of those with less than a high school education, and 71 percent of adults 65 and older versus 45 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds. Broken into generations, the pattern was unmistakable: Pre-boomers at 70 percent, Baby Boomers at 58 percent, Generation X at 47 percent.

It’s a mystery to me that we could have known about this for so long but seemed to not want to talk about it: Each generation of younger people is reading less or less frequently.

From there she walked the audience through four population changes — an aging population, growing racial and ethnic diversity, a widening gap between rich and poor, and the concentration of population in certain regions and metros. She spent the most time on aging: Boomers were then 42 and 43, not 50; fertility was low; the number of Americans over 100 was projected to grow from roughly 37,000 in 1990 to about 137,000 in 2010 and 850,000 by 2050. Households with children would not grow; empty nesters would. Editors who had built their sections around “what’s of interest to families” were going to need another hook.

The hinge of the whole talk was Generation Y, which contributed only 15 million adults in 1998 but would add 65 million by 2010 — 29 percent of all adults. Everything depended on how that generation behaved.

If Generation Y reads at the same level as Generation X, overall daily readership will be below 50 percent by 2010 — 45 percent by 2015. Following that train of logic, the last American reading a newspaper would be observed in 2078.

Reinhardt offered a reason for hope — surveys showed Generation Y as more optimistic, more community-minded, more involved than Generation X — and then framed the challenge as a question the room had a very short window to answer:

The challenge to newspapers is how and what do we need to do to make a larger proportion of them newspaper readers than Generation X?

She also dismissed the industry’s favorite consolation, that people pick up the habit as they age. Asked exactly that in the Q&A, she was blunt:

If you did not read a newspaper when you were 35 and you did not read one when you were 45, why would you suddenly take it up at 55 or 65? You have established patterns.

You have a few safe years. Do not be lulled. You have a few years when you have the Boomers and Pre-boomers who are big readers with you. The future is whether you can get Generation Y.

Reading this in 2026, the arithmetic has long since resolved itself, and not in the direction the hopeful reading allowed for. What stands out now is not the forecast but the framing: Reinhardt was telling a room full of editors that the crucial period was the next five to 10 years, and that working on it that day was “none too soon.” Those were the same years the industry spent arguing about what to put on its websites. The demographic clock she described was running the entire time.

February 1993 memo to Pam Johnson proposing a new approach to The Arizona Republic's Saturday edition

Rethinking the Saturday Republic

A February 1993 memo to Pam Johnson about the Saturday edition of The Arizona Republic. It grew out of a conversation with John Oppedahl and the paper’s latest readership research, which suggested Saturday didn’t behave like the rest of the week.

For too long, many newspapers, including this one, have looked at Saturday as an extension of the weekday (Monday through Friday). While our readers (myself included) see Saturday more as an prelude to Sunday.

The research point that mattered most: one in four readers said they spent more time with the Saturday paper than with a typical weekday edition — and those readers tended to have children under 18 at home and two or more people employed in the household.

Understanding and responding to that difference is the opportunity and challenge facing the paper.

I proposed a small working group — the right mix of “thinkers” and “doers” — naming Phil Hennessy, Susan Love, Bill Hill, Amy Carlile, Vinton Supplee, Judy Nichols and Diana Shantic. Among the content ideas: a Saturday centerpiece much like Sunday’s, a week in review feature, color comics, a feature for parents and kids to read together, home and garden and auto packages, personal finance, and health or fitness.

Attached was a timetable running from committee selection in February through research, prototypes, focus groups and marketing, with a launch of a new kind of Saturday newspaper by October or November.

NewsInc. September 1992 article spread headlined "Differences?" examining why women were leaving newspapers

Looking at the Newspaper Gender Gap,1992

An article by Susan Hansen in the September 1992 issue of NewsInc., examining why women were leaving newspapers and what editors were — and weren’t — doing about it. The piece opens with the Knight-Ridder/Tribune wire’s short-lived “Woman-Advisory” alerts and moves through the task forces, consultants, seminars and targeted sections that chains large and small had launched, driven less by principle than by economics.

The powers that be have lately concluded that women a) vote, and b) spend money.

The numbers cited: a Newspaper Advertising Bureau study showing an almost 18 percent drop in daily readership among adult women between 1970 and 1990, compared with a 12.5 percent decline among male readers; women holding only 10 percent of editor and executive editor slots at papers with circulations of more than 250,000, per the National Federation of Press Women; and a Women, Men, and Media Project survey of 20 front pages in February 1992 that found women claimed just 34 percent of bylines and only 13 percent of those referenced or quoted.

Quoted throughout are consultant and former Gannett executive Nancy Woodhull, St. Paul Pioneer Press managing editor Mindi Keirnan, Los Angeles Times associate editor Narda Zacchino, Washington Post columnist Judy Mann, Knight-Ridder vice president for news Jennie Buckner, and Georgetown linguist Deborah Tannen. Keirnan on the “no time to read” explanation:

“I don’t buy it when a woman says she doesn’t have enough time to read the paper… It’s a polite way of saying it’s not interesting enough for me to set aside.”

Much of the industry’s response, the article reports, centered on reviving women’s sections — ASNE‘s $200,000 “You” prototype for the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, and the Chicago Tribune‘s “Womanews,” which about 60 newspapers signed on to syndicate in its first year. Critics warned of ghettoizing serious coverage. Zacchino:

“I find women saying we need to do more in the rest of the paper. We should start on the front page—make women feel this entire newspaper has something of interest to them.”

A companion feature, “Advice and Dissent,” gave 10 newswomen free rein to critique the front pages of The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. The panel: Deborah Howell of Newhouse News Service; Jacqui Banaszynski of the St. Paul Pioneer Press; Amy Kisman of USA Weekend; Nina Bernstein of New York Newsday; Emilia Askari of the Detroit Free Press; Renée Loth of the Boston Globe; columnists Judy Mann, Robin Abcarian of the L.A. Times and Betty Bayé of the Louisville Courier-Journal; and graphics director Laura Varon Brown of the Detroit Free Press. Their consensus was to focus on real people, replace foreign roundups with enterprise, and give women a presence.

“The truth about why women are leaving newspapers is self-evident,” says Washington Post columnist Judy Mann. “I don’t exist on these front pages.”

The article closes with examples of papers changing beats rather than adding sections — a full-time day care reporter and family page at the Charlotte Observer, expanded women’s sports and personal finance coverage at the Rocky Mountain News, and at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, reduced local political coverage, doubled education staffing, a new women’s health care reporter, and new consumer and local transportation beats. Keirnan on what convinced her staff, after she made line editors and reporters interview women readers and nonreaders directly:

“When people say to you ‘I read the paper while I blow dry my hair,’ you get religion.”

Typewritten 1974 Chicago Tribune staff report titled Proposals for Improving the Chicago Tribune and Attracting Younger Readers

Attracting Younger Readers: 1974 Tribune Report

This is a staff report from my early days at the Chicago Tribune, titled “Proposals for Improving the Chicago Tribune and Attracting Younger Readers.” It carries the names of nine staffers: Ovie Carter, Gary Deeb, Howard Finberg, Clarence Page, Don Pierson, Bill Plunkett, Schickedanz, Rick Soll and Linda Winer. We were tasked to help the Tribune reach younger readers.  We were the younger staff members; I had been at the Trib for just about 2 years.

The introduction doesn’t ease into the problem. It opens with a description of how the paper was being seen from the outside:

Big, bulky. Impersonal. Stodgy. More concerned with things than people. As much fun as drinking cod liver oil (good for you but not so easy to swallow). Nearly devoid of any flair, flamboyance, or personality.

The committee’s argument was that this was a problem of perception and image more than content, and that the attitudes outside the building were mirrored by the attitudes inside it.

Simply stated, the Chicago Tribune takes itself too seriously. This is not to diminish its role as one of the nation’s best newspapers. Rather, it is a suggestion that the time has come for the Chicago Tribune to slaughter, once and for all, many of its sacred cows.

From there the report goes section by section — main news, editorial page, Perspective, Tempo, sports, business, the picture page, comics, Metro, the Sunday paper, copy editing, promotion. The recommendations are specific and, in places, blunt. A page one index every day. Long stories jumped to a designated jump page. A news-feature editor responsible for Column 1 and other offbeat material. Tempo remade from an old-fashioned women’s section into a daily “magazine-of-life,” preferably as an easy-to-handle tabloid pullout for the bus or train commuter. Entertainment and the arts displayed prominently rather than buried. A pop-culture column three times a week. Business pulled out as its own section. Sports writing tightened, with irreverence and humor encouraged.

The masthead got its own recommendation:

Removal of the flag would not necessarily attract new readership by itself. However, the slogan “World’s Greatest Newspaper” should be dumped. Its hyperbolic nature is unsuitable for the Tribune’s newly acclaimed progressive attitude of fairness and credibility.

The editorial page came in for the harshest treatment — described as the single most offensive part of the paper to young readers, with editorials characterized as “prairie populism” and “jumping jingoism.” The committee acknowledged that asking the paper to moderate its editorial stance might be impractical, then added a line I still like:

Editorial writers are advised that it is not always necessary to stand athwart progress hollering “Halt!”

What holds up best, reading it now, are the sections on people rather than packaging. The report faulted the paper for poor use of staff — writers forced to write formula stories, individual voices absorbed into what the report called “the Grey Blob,” and very little discussion between writers and editors about the quality of work. It also pressed on coverage of women and on Black and Latin communities, noting that most coverage of those communities “still consists of crime news, special series, and Operation PUSH,” and calling for the paper’s shortcomings there to be thoroughly investigated.

The closing borrowed the paper’s own advertising line:

To paraphrase the Trib’s current ad-promo line, “We need a friend in the Tribune.”

Fifty-plus years later, the questions in this report — how does a newspaper reach readers who don’t already have the habit, and how does it let its own staff sound like human beings — have never really gone away. Only the platforms changed.