• by Michael Shields , January 10, 2005

Back in November, the revered Times of London converted from strictly publishing a broadsheet edition to exclusively employing a tabloid format. The Times had been testing the format in response to a similar move by its competitor, The Independent in London.

Despite the fact that The Times claimed circulation growth and a younger readership as a result of the test, the decision to radically alter the format of a respected, 218-year-old newspaper is not expected to send any ripple effects across the pond. Most experts point to a number of factors-- including costs, complacency, and lack of competitive threat--ensuring that the broadsheet format will have a long life in the United States.

First and foremost, going tabloid is an awkward and costly proposition.

"Logistically, it's not an easy conversion," said John Kimball, senior vice president and chief marketing officer at the Newspaper Association of America. "It's not an easy production thing."

It seems the economics of the U.S. newspaper market are far different than Europe.

"Eighty-seven percent of newspaper's revenue is from advertising," said Earl J. Wilkinson, executive director of the International Newspaper Marketing Association. "In Europe, the majority of revenue is from circulation. It's not an easy conversion."

Wilkinson has seen estimates that papers should expect to incur an automatic 20-25 percent decline in ad revenue if they go tabloid, since so many broadsheet papers charge by the column inch.

"The question is, are those dollars made up elsewhere?" he said. "Do you sell more copies? Do you save more in newsprint? Do you spend more in production? It's a complex execution."

In addition to costs, there appears to be a lack of consensus among experts over whether U.S. readers want a tabloid format (less than 1 percent of the country's nearly 1,500 paid daily newspapers are tabloid).

"Tabloids serve a purpose for commuters, and most Americans drive to work," said Paul Ginocchio, a media analyst at Deutsche Bank Securities.

Plus, Americans are accustomed to the broadsheet format, and are reluctant to give up their pull-out sections. "You'd be disrupting the marketplace when the marketplace is used to a broadsheet format," said Kimball. "You'd have to make sure that the marketplace said that they want that. This is not something you do without a lot of research."

Yet others believe that tabloids are exactly what newspapers need to reverse circulation declines and an aging audience.

"There is lots of research suggesting that consumers prefer a smaller format," said Wilkinson. "That's an old story."

"Most American papers have hit a wall in circulation," he added. "They are not growing the right kind of readers--they are not getting younger adults and women. Yet when they hear format change, it's the word 'change' that gets [publishers]."

Besides revenue risks and fear of change, 'respectable' copy-heavy newspapers would have to figure out how to squeeze their content into a format that may require shorter stories and more photos (The London Times has vowed to stay as serious as ever).

And then there is that label. It seems 'tabloid' has a stigma attached to it. "When publishers hear the word 'tabloid,' they think National Enquirer," said Wilkinson. In fact, the London calls its format 'compact' rather than tabloid.

But The Times example also points to another factor that will not be likely to spur the adoption of the tabloid in the United States. While competition nudged The Times into action, "there are almost no competitive markets in the U.S.," Wilkinson said.

The more competitive newspaper markets, like New York, Chicago, and Boston, already have successful tabloid papers, plus an influx of free daily commuter papers (The Denver Market is the rare exception of a market with a tabloid, the Rocky Mountain News, that does not rely on mass transit for success).

Yet Wilkinson is surprised that the giants of the business, like The New York Times, have conceded the youth market to independents like Metro.

Officially, The New York Times says no format change is under consideration. "We have no such plans," said Toby Usnik, director of public relations. "Our readers and advertisers tell us they prefer our broadsheet format."