Just one question here. You’re a big city newspaper manager. Why declare a letter to a rival editor “Not for Publication” and then copy a dozen reporters, several if not all of whom have little reason to be sympathetic to your argument? Have you perhaps not heard of the internets? You know, the thing with all those tubes?
For your edification. An e-mail exchange between Monica Moses of the Star Tribune and Steve Perry of City Pages.
Here is the City Pages package on the Strib sale.
__
From: Monica Moses [mailto:mmoses@startribune.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 3:35 PM
To: Letters
Cc: Anders Gyllenhaal; Doug Grow; Derek Simmons; Mike Meyers; Pamela Miller; Rochelle A. (News) Olson; Steve Brandt; Scott Gillespie
Subject: letter to editor, NOT FOR PUBLICATION
To the editor (NOT FOR PUBLICATION):
It’s tiresome to have to correct some of the biggest leaps of logic in City Pages’ recent coverage of the Star Tribune sale. But here goes.
It’s true that Star Tribune daily circulation declined 4.7% between 2001 and 2006. But guess what? That’s the third best record among Top 20 local U.S. newspapers, behind only The New York Post and The New York Daily News. Compare our five-year decline with that of the Boston Globe (down 17.3%), the Detroit Free Press (down 18.4%), the Los Angeles Times (down 20.3%), the San Francisco Chronicle (down 22.5%) or Newsday (down 25.7%).
Since 2004, the Star Tribune has deliberately reduced circulation sponsored by a third party by 20%, which accounts for a significant piece of the decline.
It’s hardly the case that the 2005 redesign caused some kind of notable circulation drop. Furthermore, circulation is not a terribly reliable indicator of how a newspaper is doing with its readers. Circulation is still the prevailing metric among U.S. newspapers, in large part because the big advertisers on the Audit Board of Circulation like it that way. Circulation declines mean cheaper ad rates.
Newspapers in Canada moved from circulation to readership some years ago, and the most respected researchers in the United States think readership is a more meaningful indicator of a newspaper’s value among its readers. Circulation measures how many newspapers have been somehow pressed into the hands of readers. Readership measures how deeply and frequently readers actually engage with your content –how many people are actually reading.
And that’s where you’ll find the real story of the Star Tribune following the redesign. Readership increased 2.3 percentage points, or 6%, in the six months following the redesign, according to Scarborough Research. That’s the first increase since 2002 and the biggest jump since 1996.
Monica Moses
Star Tribune
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
>>> >>> “Steve Perry”
*Why* not for publication, Monica? Because it’s not exactly immune to rebuttal?
_
________________________________
From: Monica Moses [mailto:mmoses@startribune.com]
Sent: Fri 1/12/2007 4:16 PM
To: Letters; Steve Perry
Cc: Anders Gyllenhaal; Doug Grow; Derek Simmons; Mike Meyers; Pamela Miller; Rochelle A. (News) Olson; Steve Brandt; Scott Gillespie
Subject: RE: letter to editor, NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Ha. I have absolute faith in my argument.
The letter is not for publication because I am not the newspaper’s spokesperson. Moreover, your publication has not proven itself to be honorable in accepting criticism and looking at facts that don’t fit a preconceived, predictable, cynical, narrow portrait of the Star Tribune. Your motives are not pure. You can’t be trusted to do the right thing with the information.
Monica Moses
Star Tribune
______________________
From: Steve Perry
Sent: Fri 1/12/2007 4:36 PM
To: Monica Moses; Letters
Cc: Anders Gyllenhaal; Doug Grow; Derek Simmons; Mike Meyers; Pamela Miller; Rochelle A. (News) Olson; Steve Brandt; Scott Gillespie
Subject: RE: letter to editor, NOT FOR PUBLICATION
I’ve always heard that you were a first-rate suck-up.
Ha yourself.
________________________________
Leave a Reply