The above link is to Editor and Publisher's website. And I quote from the start of the article here:
"NEW YORK In her report this week on the new Fas-Fax circulation numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, Merrill Lynch analyst Lauren Rich Fine observed that circulation declines, already bad enough at some papers, looked even worse when you broke out the "50% or greater paid" category. She noted that in Q1 conference calls, many newspaper companies had indicated that they were trying to reduce the under-50% and "other paid" segments "in an effort to win advertisers over with their resulting 'quality' circulation." But some of these new Fas-Fax numbers are "seemingly in direct conflict with some company remarks," she wrote."
And guess which paper has the largest circulation decline of ANY major newspaper of people who actually pay for the newspaper? Yup - the LA Times! In fact, it the Times has the second worst figure quoted of ANY newspaper in the country!! A staggering 12.9 % decline! That means that almost 13% of the people who even paid half-price or more for their subscriptions - stopped subscribing!! At this rate, soon the LA Times have to pay people to read it!
The first figure below shows the decline of the daily circulation in subscribers who pay 50% or more for their subscriptions for the LA Times, and the second figure shows the overall decline. But... the prevous number given for the weekly decline by the LA Times was... 6.5% and not 7.7%. Will check into this.
Los Angeles Times -12.9 (-7.7)
UPDATE TO UPDATE!!
Editor and Publisher got back to me about the dueling figures for LA Times daily subscription numbers within - minutes! - and will check out the differences between the numbers. Journalism at its best!!
UPDATE TO UPDATE TO UPDATE!!!
These appear to be raw figures for the overall weekday circulation for the LA TImes:
In March 2004 the Times in the official "fas-fax" listed its daily circ as: 983,727
But in the latest fas-fax, it's figure for the previous March had been reduced to 970,802 (after taking that offical "reduction")
Its March 2005 number is: 907,997
Hence the difference between the 6.5% and the 7.7%. Now as far as the percentage reduction in people who pay 50% or more, since those numbers would not be 'reduced' (one would asume) since they are actually paying customers and not 'bogus' circulation, the 12.9% drop in those numbers would appear not to be affected. But will have more on this tomorrow.