Chicagoist: Breaking: Chicago Young Adults Actually ReadSkim

paperboy

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:42:08 -0600

This fixation on paper has got to stop. E&P should know better than to print such a useless study, with admitted "convenience" sampling.

spudart

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:43:57 -0600

Speaking on a positive note for the Reds. Hey, yes, you are not getting super indepth coverage with the Reds. But it's a nice fun 15-minute read while on the train. What's so wrong with that? Sure it's not the amazing mind changing power. But it's nice SIMPLE news. I do enjoy reading a very thoughtful in-depth article or book. But sometimes I like a simple quick read just to see what's going on in news/entertainment/local news/sports/etc. Do we all want every single newspaper out there to have lengthy articles? No. Variety and choice are good. One may argue back this choice is a stupid brainless one. C'mon, it's more simple and maybe SOMETIMES brainless, but does EVERY single thing in this world need to be an indepth insight into life? Relax, enjoy the quick read and smell some flowers on your way home.

crain

Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:41:04 -0600

the red's are empty calories. they have great sports and entertainment coverage, but as a news source, it's like eating a bag of doritos. you're full, but you'd feel better if you puked. i'd rather go for a tabloid-sized version of the tribune. hmmm... http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000829220

Zak

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:20:30 -0600

As inane an observation as this may seem, my brother used to work at a RED-style paper in Boston right as these pseudo newspapers first started taking hold around the country. Their philosophy is wholly based on public transit ridership...and as previously noted...this may seem inane...but the tabloid fold proves to be a surprisingly strong selling point for a paper targeted at commuters. I think the REDS are, no offense, crap...they sort of embody a lot of what's wrong with American media today--the philosophy that any news story can be reduced to three paragraphs or two minutes depending on the medium--but their size and shape make it easier than handling and unwieldy Trib on the Red Line in the morning. Plus...they're cheap...and crappy news, aparrently, is better than no news at all...

Wes Meltzer

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:34:36 -0600

There are slightly fewer than 1.5 million daily riders on the CTA. And I hardly ever see -- saw; I'm in New York temporarily -- anyone reading the Trib, so you would think they could at least come anywhere near the Sun-Times' circulation numbers for mass transit. But no. How bad must it hurt that they're dumping tons of money into it and yet it's hardly making any inroads into the market? Their target demographic is 18-29--year-olds, of which there are slightly more than 1.5 million in Chicagoland according to the Census, and they're pulling a circulation of 80,000? That's even worse than the Trib's percentage numbers for population.

Aaron

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:10:23 -0600

From the advertising perspective, it matters what *quality* of readers you want. I'm sure the Red advertising space is worth *something* -- you are reaching let's say 120,000 younger readers every day. However, those readers are bleary eyed and more in tune with their iPod than news.

Chris

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:57:21 -0600

Aaron, thanks for the response. Re: 1 - I'm curious what the ad rates are for these papers and what the density of the ads are. Any ideas? Anyone? Re: 2 - I'll remember that if I want to advertise on Chicagoist. :-) I won't tell your advertisers, though.

Mr. Smith

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:56:50 -0600

I think people forget that most of that news is re-purposed from wire stories and the Trib's own fantastic writers (including the folks that produce original content on Trib-affiliated sites like Metromix). There was another recent survey about the Reds that asked if the news was valuable or if the papers were informative. To some extent, the answer is yes. But I usually get the information that shows up there from the Trib online or other wire services.

chicagomonkey

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:39:11 -0600

I used to work at a newspaper out in the suburbs. Even was affliated with one of the big two city papers. And I have to say, while those watered-down papers are giving you news that you want to read (and ultimately make more money), newspapers like that are forgetting one essential responsibility of a newspaper. Giving people news they NEED to know as well. I find those papers, even with all their well-designed glory, neglect that more often than not. And it saddens me that those papers are their primary news source.

Aaron

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:37:29 -0600

Chris, True, the Reds are selling ad space and making most of their money off of advertising... HOWEVER, two points I should have made in my post: 1. A reach of 80,000 isn't that great, esp. when the S-T and Trib have much larger circulations. Heck in that ballpark, Chicagoist's reach is amazingly large for being a new publication with *zilch* marketing budget. 2. If the Reds have to *give* away their papers, it says something about how captive the reader's eye balls are. As an advertiser, do I really want to advertise in a space most likely skimmed and then thrown away? The Red readers aren't anxiously looking forward to reading the paper every morning. The ad space isn't all that valuable.

Katie

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:25:09 -0600

I work up at Northwestern, where the Redeye is free (and I'm sure it is free around other Universities around the city). I think more students "read" it because of that aspect. If they had to pay a quarter for it, they wouldn't be reading it. I think this totally skews their results.

Chris

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:14:34 -0600

The article also states that "the Tribune says it distributes 80,000 copies of RedEye every weekday. Of those, about 14,000 to 15,000 are paid for." Simple math shows that 15,000 paid copies multiplied by 25 cents each equals a whopping $3,750 -- probably just enough to cover the expense of hiring people to pass out free copies. Surely the RedEye isn't adding value to the Tribune's bottom line. You make the wrong assumption that the newspapers are selling you content. The actual situation is that the newspapers are selling your attention to advertisers. And the red paper readers are just the demographic the marketers want to reach.

mike

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:07:52 -0600

The commuter dailies are spreading across the land. Here in Dallas, the Morning News gives us "Quick," which is about as useful from an information standpoint as a stripper's business card. I told my publisher just yesterday that while commuter dailies might be a business boon in the short term, the long-term prospects for these feeble rags are grim. You can only fool casual readers for so long before they realize you're heaping tripe upon them. And when they leave, the advertisers will follow.