Going After Readers From Coast To Coast   

The New York Times expands its national edition and launches two regional versions.

To paraphrase the title of a satirical movie about the Russian menace during the Cold War, "The New York Times Is Coming! The New York Times Is Coming!"

The Times is mounting an aggressive campaign to increase its circulation outside its home market, banking on what is probably newspaperdom's strongest brand name. A key part of this strategy is a new northeast edition, which actually comes in two flavors, one for the Boston region and the other for the Washington, D.C., area. The rest of the country gets the recently expanded national edition.

Why is the Times doing this, and should local newspapers around the country be worried about this incursion into their turf?

A major reason for the strategy is that the Times doesn't have much choice but to go after distant readers if it hopes to keep up its circulation, which at the most recent preliminary audit was 1,071,120 weekdays and 1,652,800 Sunday. That's down nearly 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively, from five years ago.

Moreover, boosting national circulation plays to the Times' strength in national advertising, which accounts for much more – 53 percent – of its advertising revenue than is typical of dailies. For the industry, national advertising accounts for about 12 percent.

Of the Times' total circulation, about 38 percent on weekdays and 40 percent on Sunday comes from outside New York City and the 26 counties in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania that the newspaper considers its home market. Circulation in this area has dropped nearly 5 percent over five years (1990-1995), while circulation beyond has risen more than 8 percent.

Analyzing the Times' circulation performance by region illustrates the appeal of a more aggressive national strategy. The paper's circulation in states away from the Atlantic seaboard has grown more than 9 percent over the last five years and now accounts for about 17 percent of the total.

In the seaboard states – from Maine to Florida – growth has been less than 1 percent, with the home market decline a major factor. In the Boston metropolitan area, circulation has dropped 8 percent (1990-1995), to about 25,000, and the Washington, D.C., market has grown just over 1 percent to about 31,500. That helps explain the emphasis on the Boston and Washington editions.

Clearly, the Times needs to boost its circulation in the East and maintain its growth elsewhere if it is to reverse its recent decline. It is to the credit of the newspaper's management that, at a time when many newspapers are scaling back investment to save money, the Times has committed $1 billion over 10 years to improve the newspaper and service to readers and advertisers.

The investment initially includes printing of the new four-section Boston and Washington editions in those cities in order to permit later deadlines. The metro edition for the home market eventually will have six sections, with full color. The national edition will continue to have three sections.

None of this means that the Times is likely to become a serious threat to local dailies around the nation. Even in its home market, the Times appeals to a fairly thin slice of readers – those with a deep interest in serious news, seriously presented, and in high-quality coverage of culture and other special interests. The Times' circulation in its home market represents less than 10 percent of households weekdays and 15 percent on Sunday, and market penetrations elsewhere will be much lower. Still, in almost every city in the nation there is a small percentage of readers willing to pay a high price – as much as $500 a year – to get the Times seven days a week.

A sure sign that local newspapers do not feel threatened by the Times' national push is the fact that nearly three dozen of them have agreed to let the Times rely on their distribution systems for home delivery, and a number of them print the national edition under contract.

Although the Times may never become a threat to local dailies, it sometimes can trump the locals. For example, the Times' daily local television and cable listings are far superior to what appears in the Washington Post. (The Post does have complete listings in its Sunday television guide.)

And the Times' relatively thin circulation away from its home market means it can deliver a paper with later news than the local daily. The Times that was delivered to my Maryland doorstep 20 miles from downtown Washington carried the final results of the Academy Awards the night before, while my home-delivered Post reported only halfway through the ceremony. That is not why I pay $8.50 a week for the Times (the Post costs $2.65 a week), but it may be why others do.