|
I'*
II~ IL_
i6 3
'13193161
19316 t,6
:) 19. i9,316
UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
LIBRARIES
Journalism and Communications
Reading Room
VO01803 I3AS3NI5
VOO1801 JO AlIS83AINf
SNOIVNINflWIO ONV I
WSI1VNHflof J0 1OOHOS
NEWSPAPERS
1963
A Presentation By the American Newspaper Publishers Association
Before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee, 1963
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
FOREWORD
This volume has been printed in response to many expressions
of interest in the full presentation by ANPA before the Antitrust
Subccmmittee of the House Judiciary Committee in March 1963.
It is intended as a reference work for ANPA members on the
full range of legal and economic topics covered in the presentation.
This broad subject matter seeks to place the daily newspaper in its
proper perspective in the United States in 1963. For that reason
the title is "Newspapers 1963."
Stanford Smith
General Manager
April 25, 1963
ini
CONTENTS
Page
FORWARD i
CONTENTS i x
PART ONE
STATEMENT OF ANPA GENERAL MANAGER, STANFORD SMITH
I. INTRODUCTION 3
ANPA Membership 3
The ANPA Findings 4
II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PRESS IN THE U.S. 6
Rise of the Independent Press 8
More Dailies Now Than in 1944-45 9
III. POWER OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESS 12
IV. LABOR UNION PRACTICES IN THE NEWSPAPER FIELD
AS RELATED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION 17
V. COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING BUSINESS 19
Ownership of Newspaper Groups 22
VI. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING 25
Some Advancements Minimized 27
VII. CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF NEWSPAPERS AND
BROADCAST STATIONS 28
VIII. LIMITED ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS APPLIED TO NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING 30
iv
PART ONE (continued)
Page
IX. REPORT OF BRITISH ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS 32
X. CONCLUSION 34
PART TWO
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER
BUSINESS BY PROFESSOR JESSE W. MARKHAM
I. INTRODUCTION 38
II. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED LOCAL
NEWS-DISSEMINATION MARKETS 42
The Standard Metropolitan Area Study 43
The 50 County Study 47
III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED LOCAL
ADVERTISING MARKETS 48
IV. MERGERS'AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS 52
V. CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPETITION IN
THE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS 57
PART TWO (continued)
TABLES AND CHARTS TO ACCOMPANY STATEMENT OF JESSE W. MARKHAM
TABLE I MEDIA-ENGAGED IN NATIONAL, .LOCAL AND CLASSIFIED
ADVERTISING 62
TABLE II STRUCTURAL TRENDS IN MEDIA OWNERSHIP, SELECTED
YEARS, 1945-1959 63
TABLE III THE SMSA STUDY 64
TABLE IV THE COUNTY STUDY 94
SOURCES OF DATA IN TABLES III AND IV 144
V
PART TWO (continued)
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
CHART
CHART
CHART
CHART
CHART
CHART
CHART
v
VI
VII
VIII
I (a)
I (b)
I (c)
I (d)
I (e)
II
III
PART THREE
NEWSPAPERS AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS--ANALYSIS AND
SYNTHESIS .OF STATUTES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
Analysis and Synthesis of Statutes and Judicial
Interpretations
CHANGES IN NUMBER OF ADVERTISING MEDIA ENTITIES,
BY TYPES OF MEDIA, 1939-1961
TOTAL ADVERTISING VOLUME IN THE UNITED STATES
NEW U.S. DAILY NEWSPAPERS VS. DAILY NEWSPAPERS
WHICH SUSPENDED, MERGED, OR SWITCHED TO WEEKLY,
1930-1962
HOURLY WAGE SCALES IN THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS FOR
FIVE MAJOR CRAFTS
FITEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
EDITOR & PUBLISHER COMPOSITE DAILY
FIPTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
10,000 ,25,000 DAILY CIRCULATION
FIFIEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
25,000 50,000 DAILY CIRCULATION
FIFTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
50,000 100,000 DAILY CIRCULATION
FIFTEEN-YEAR RECORD OF REVENUE AND COST INCREASES
OVER 100, 000 DAILY CIRCULATION
U.S. NEWSPRINT CONSUMPTION 1946-1962
NEWSPAPERS AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 1947-1961
145
146, 147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
159
PART THREE (continued)
I. Over-All Conclusions 160
A. Limited Role of Antitrust in Newspaper Field 160
B. Virtually All Antitrust Newspaper Cases Have
Involved Charges of Violations Based Upon
Alleged Abuses in Business Practices (Behavior) 161
II. Statutory Standards of Major Antitrust Laws: In
General 164
III. Jurisdictional Requirement of Interstate Commerce 166
A. Under Sherman Act 166
B. Jurisdictional Questions Under the Robinson-
Patman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act 172
Newspaper Advertising Space Is Not a "Commod-
ity" Within Section 2 (Robinson-Patman Act)
and Section 3 of the Clayton Act 172
IV. Newspaper Publishing is a Private Business Not
Subject to Regulation as in the Public Utility
or Other Regulated Business Fields 178
Conclusions Summarized 178
General Constitutional Considerations Relevant to
Statutory Regulation of Newspapers 178
A. Refusal to Accept Advertising 180
B. Refusal to Distribute Newspapers Through
Certain Parties 182
C. Refusal to Accept and Publish Material in
Nature of Public Notices 183
D. Refusal to Print Some Aspect of a News Story 184
Associated Press Case Not Decided on a "Public
Utility" Rationale 185
A Newspaper Is Not a Manufactured Article as in
Industries Engaged in the Production and Distribution
of Commodities 186
vii
PART THREE (continued)
Page
V. Primary Jurisdiction of Federal Communications
Commission Over Licensing of Radio-TV Under
Common Ownership of Newspaper Publisher: Relation
to Antitrust Law 191
VI. Refusal to Deal; Scope of Newspaper Publisher's
Right to Select Persons for Business Relationships 198
A. Individual Refusals to Deal--Newspaper Cases 199
B. Concerted Refusals to Deal 205
Press Associations and Related Cases 208
VII. Conscious Parallelism or Uniformity of Business
Conduct vs. Conspiracy 212
VIII. Monopolization or Attempt to Monopolize Under
Section 2 of Sherman Act by Single Newspaper
Publisher or Enterprise 216
Sole Daily Newspaper in Local Community: Lay vs.
Legal Concept of "Monopoly" 216
The Sole Daily Community Newspaper Is Neither a
Barrier to Responsible Performance of Press
Functions Nor a Monopolistic Threat 218
Unreasonable Per Se Antitrust Violations 227
Extended Rule of Reason Inquiry 228
Monopolization Under Section 2 of Sherman Act 228
The Legal Concept of Monopoly Power In the
Relevant Market 229
Required Proof of a General Intent or Purpose to
Exercise Monopoly Power 230
Application to Sole Daily Community Newspaper--
Union Leader Case 230
Union Leader Findings of Fact 231
Union Leader Conclusions of Law on Natural Sole
Daily Monopoly 234
Conclusions of Law on Wrongful Intent to Exclude
Competition 237
viii
PART THREE (continued)
Page
Illegal Group Boycott Induced by Union Leader 239
Discriminatory Advertising Rates 241
Court of Appeals Absolved the Gazette of Wrongful
Intent to Exclude Competition 242
NNE's Purchase of Gazette Stock Held Lawful 244
Doctrinal Significance of Union Leader Opinions
of District Court and Court of Appeals 245
IX. Judicial Recognition of Intramedia and Intermedia
Effective Competition in the Relevant Market 256
X. Advertising Rate Practices 270
A. ANPA Leaves Each of Its Publisher Members
Completely Free to Determine Within His Own
Independent and Unilateral Discretion the
Advertising Rates He Charges for Advertising
Space in His Newspaper or Newspapers 271
B. Unit or Combination Advertising Rate for Same
Advertisement in Several Newspapers of Same
Newspaper Owner 273
C. Newspaper Consent Judgments on Refusal to
Deal--Unit Rate Plan 279
XI. Newspaper Mergers in Relation to Celler-Kefauver
Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act 280
Union Leader Case 281
Jurisdictional Questions Under Section 7 282
Supreme Court Approach to Adjudication of Section
7 Merger Case Outlined in Brown Shoe Company Case 283
(1) Economic Purpose of the Merger 287
(2) Market Factors Pertaining to Competitive Effects 287
(a) Size or percentage share of market
foreclosed 287
(b) Is there a trend toward vertical integration
attributable to competitive forces? If so,
what are the probable effects on the merger
under consideration? 288
ix
PART THREE (continued)
Page
(c) Is there a trend toward undue concen-
tration and what are its probable effects
upon competition? 289
Defining the Relevant Market 294
The "Reasonable Interchangeability" Test Applied to
Relevant Market 294
Failing Newspaper--Exception and Justification 301
XII. Joint Arrangements Between Newspapers: Criteria
of Legality Under Antitrust Laws 314
Applications of Principles to Joint Arrangements
Between Newspapers 322
XIII. Limited Role of Antitrust Enforcement and
Remedies Applied to Newspaper Publishing Business 329
The First Amendment Precludes Various Proposed
Congressional Enactments to Regulate the Press 334
XIV. Basic Constitutional and Factual Differences
Between the United States and British Press:
A Summary and Critique of the British Royal
Commission on the Press 335
Part I Purposes 336
Part II Background 337
Part III Differences in Circumstances 339
Part IV Constitutional Differences 340
Part V The Commission's Recommendations 343
Part VI Summary 346
PART FOUR
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING
I. INTRODUCTION 351
II. THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF NEWSPAPER PRINTING
PROCESSES PRIOR TO THE POST-WORLD WAR II YEARS 352
A. The Composing Room and Engraving Department 352
x
PART FOUR (continued)
B. The Stereotyping Department 353
C. The Press Room 353
D. The Mail Room 354
III. THE RADICAL CHANGES IN NEWSPAPER PRINTING
PROCESSES SINCE WORLD WAR II 354
A. The Composing Room and Engraving Department 355
B. The Stereotyping Department 357
C. The Press Room 361
D. The Mail Room 365
IV. MAJOR NEWSPAPER PRODUCTION RESEARCH PROGRAMS
SINCE WORLD WAR II 366
V. INCREASED CAPITAL OUTLAYS SINCE WORLD WAR II 371
VI. ANTICIPATED FUTURE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS 372
VII. CONCLUSIONS 373
PART ONE
STATEMENT OF STANFORD SMITE, GENERAL MANAGER
OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.
STATEMENT OF ANPA GENERAL MANAGER STANFORD SMITH
BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.
My name is Stanford Smith. I am General Manager of the American
Newspaper Publishers Association.
ANPA wishes to express its thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to
the members of the Subcommittee for according this opportunity to
appear at this early stage of your hearings on the newspaper business.
In doing so we hope to provide the Subcommittee a usable factual
base as a guide for consideration of additional testimony.
AMPA Membership
ANPA is a non-profit membership corporation existing under the
laws of the State of New York. It was organized in 1887.
Membership in ANPA is held by newspapers rather than by individuals.
Our present membership of more than 860 daily newspapers represents
more than 90 per cent of the daily and Sunday newspaper circulation
in the United States. About half our members have daily circulations
under 25,000; about three-fourths of our members have daily circulations
under 50,000.
As a national trade association, ANPA concerns itself with matters
of over-all significance to the daily newspaper publishing business
and the profession of journalism. AMPA acts as a clearing house of
business information for its members by disseminating many bulletins,
research reports and other communications about all phases of the
newspaper business.
ANPA owns and operates a research laboratory devoted to efforts
to find more effective ways to produce daily newspapers of better
quality at lower cost. Ibis is accomplished through the ANPA Research
Institute. Including the research activities, ANPA has 112 full-time
employees in offices in New York and Chicago and the research center
at Easton, Pa.
ANPA neither concerns itself with nor attempts to dictate the
management policy of any individual newspaper or group of newspapers,
nor does AMPA participate in any manner in the determination of news
content or editorial policies of its member papers.
AIPA regards these hearings as a matter of utmost importance to
the newspaper business and to the people of the United States. We are
therefore respectfully presenting the results of detailed studies and
our views for the Subcommittee's consideration.
The AIPA Findings
In summary ANPA believes the facts demonstrate the following
conclusions:
1. Changes in the structure of the newspaper business in the
United States have been the result of natural economic, social and
political forces in a free society. In the extensive population
changes of the post-war years, new daily newspapers have been
established in rapidly growing suburban areas and smaller cities
while in some of the largest cities, some daily newspapers have
suspended or merged, as a result of economic pressures. These
economic pressures include the rising cost problems of distribution
in traffic-congested metropolitan areas; the ever-increasing wage
and salary scales; the increasing costs of equipment and supplies;
the tendency of suburban retail businesses to drain off some of the
trade from the downtown stores which are principal newspaper
advertisers; the competition of many other media including direct
mail and the ever-increasing number of radio stations; and the
entry of an entirely new advertising medium -- television -- into
vigorous competition with the older media.
2. The assumption that there is a continuing decline in
competition in the newspaper publishing business is based on
erroneous premises. We will present facts to demonstrate that there
is vigorous competition in the dissemination of news and advertising,
both among newspapers and with other media.
3. There is no factual cause for alarm about changes in ownership
of newspapers and other media, either through newspaper mergers, group
ownership of newspapers, or common ownership of newspapers and radio
or television stations. A leading authority on this subject, Professor
Raymond B. Nixon, editor of Journalism Quarterly, rightly concludes
that "More media voices (meaning separate media ownerships) compete
for the attention of the U. S. public today than ever before." No less
an authority than Chairman Newton Minow of the Federal Communications
Commission has said that "The better broadcasting stations in America
are owned and operated by newspapers ....The newspapers are community
and journalism oriented. They put more emphasis on local problems
and issues."
4. The newspaper business today is more enterprising in serving
readers and advertisers, more dedicated to public service and more
vigorous in its competition with other media than ever before.
Newspapers neither seek nor want any subsidy or special legislation
from Government, but rather we rely on the Constitutional guarantee
of freedom of speech and of the press as protecting the right to
serve the public of our free society in competition with any and all
other media in the dissemination of news and advertising.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE
PRESS IN THE U. S.
In any discussion of the quantity and quality of newspaper service
American society wants and needs, there is an abundance of subjective
opinion. Almost everyone assumes he should be able to edit a newspaper
to conform with his ideas. Literature on the American press abounds
in criticisms from newspaper publishers themselves, from editors and
reporters, from schools of journalism, from labor unions, from self-
appointed critics of the press, from Government indeed, from all
walks of American life. Constructive criticism from all these sources
brings much of the great strength of daily newspapers and their
increasing efforts at improvement.
TWo hundred years of experience have evolved the daily newspapers
of the United States as they exist today. In today's form, they are
the result of the pressures of a continuing struggle for survival.
Newspaper content and quality changed in pattern as conditions of
American life changed. To be sure, newspaper publishers like
James Gordon Bennett, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Pulitzer, William
Randolph Hearst, Adolph S. Ochs, and E. W. Scripps broke new ground
in their personal views regarding what kind of newspaper the people
would read. Opinions differ on the quality of the Journalism they
personally espoused but.the historic fact is that they were innovators.
Readership became the crux of the competition for circulation and
this in turn became the magnet for advertisers. Circulation and
advertising revenues evolved as the twins of economic survival
because the newspaper is a business enterprise that must make a profit
to survive. Its economic health determines whether it can perform
the functions of supplying news, ideas and editorial opinion which is
the ultimate purpose of the newspaper as an institution in a free
society.
In his authoritative book, American Journalism, A History: 1690-1960,
Dr. Frank Luther Mott, Dean Emeritus of the School of Journalism,
University of Missouri, clearly delineates American newspaper history
into periods based on the chief characteristics of newspapers in
each period. Like many other businesses and industries, newspapers
have changed greatly, just as the United States has changed in its
economic, social and political history.
From Colonial days to the 1870's, American newspapers were
predominantly established as the voices of political parties or
partisan groups. There was a paper for almost every shade of
political opinion. Dr. Mott observes that this partisan flavor of
the press was the reason that "villages of only a few hundred would
often have two papers, of differing political faiths."
Accordingly, we can easily understand why in that period a
conscientious citizen would need to read two, three or four
newspapers to get as much varied news and opinion as he can get from
one newspaper today.
Rise of the Independent Press
Professor Mott sums up the factors that led to the emancipation
of newspapers from domination by party or special interests:
"A chief reason for this change was the shift
in emphasis from editorial comment and preoccupation
with the affairs of government to the wider fields
of news and to more intimate human interests. This
change in the news concepts took the newspapers away
from the politicians and put them in the hands of
reporters. Doubtless the widespread loosening of
party bonds and relaxation of party loyalties
contributed to newspaper 'independence', though it
is probable that the contribution was reciprocal --
that is, the changing function of the newspaper
caused by the advent of the popular cheap press,
probably did much to weaken old party solidarity.
After all, the partisan newspaper had been one of
the leading means of keeping party members convinced
and faithful."
The change from a "party press" in America to the independent
press did not take place overnight. The changes evolved slowly as
part of the developing pattern of life in America. The rising
literacy among the people led to increased reader interest in varied
content in newspapers.
In tracing the history of newspapers it is difficult to establish
precisely the number of newspapers which were in existence each year.
The sources vary somewhat. It seems clear that the number of daily
newspapers in the U. S. reached its peak about 1909 or 1910 when
there might have been as many as 2,500 dailies in existence. This
was still in a transition period from the "party press" to the modern
concept of a newspaper and a period of rapid growth of the country.
The older newspapers which had been established as political organs
were gradually going out of existence. While some new daily newspapers
were also being established, the trend was downward in the number of
daily newspapers until the time of World War II.
More Dailies Now Than in 1944-45
For the years since 1919 we have a consistent source of the number
and total circulation of U. S. daily newspapers through the Editor &
Publisher Yearbooks. The record of the years since World War II reveals
a pattern of amazing stability with only slight fluctuations in the
10
number of daily newspapers and steady increase in total daily newspaper
circulation. The number of dailies is actually greater now than at
the end of the year 1944, as shown in the following table:
Year Number of Dailies Total Daily Circulation
1944 1,744 45,954,838
1945 1,749 48,384,188
1946 1,763 50,927,505
1947 1,769 51,673,276
1948 1,781 52,285,297
1949 1,780 52,845,551
1950 1,772 53,829,072
1951 1,773 54,017, 938
1952 1,786 53,950,615
1953 1,785 54,472,286
1954 1,765 55,072,480
1955 1, 760 56,147,359
1956 1,761 57,101,510
1957 1,755 57,805,445
1958 1,751 57,418,311
1959 1,761 58,299,723
1960 1,763 58,881,746
1961 1,761 59,261,464
1962 1,760 59,848,688
The above chart simply puts in graphic form certain facts which
are well known to newspaper executives. The years since World War II
have been a period of the "population explosion" and of great mobility
of the American people. The suburbs have grown rapidly, the automobile
has provided families with the means to travel greater distances to
work or for pleasure. The same automobiles have created unprecedented
traffic problems in and around most metropolitan cities. Retail
businesses have grown fast in outlying areas around large cities and in
the small and medium size cities. All these changes have resulted in
changes in the patterns of business activity. This, in turn, has changed
the advertising patterns and reading patterns in ways which defy easy
generalization.
The really valid conclusion is that under a free economy newspapers
can be published only in those areas where there are sufficient readers
and advertising sources to offer an adequate economic base for profitable
operation. As many newspapers will be published in any given market as
are economically feasible. Where some newspapers have suspended, merged
or consolidated in some metropolitan cities in the years since the end of
World War II, new daily newspapers have been established in surrounding
suburban communities so that the total number of daily newspapers has
remained virtually constant while the total circulation has steadily
increased.
We recognize in our present society, as in the past, the continually
evolving press has its shortcomings. Like other institutions of American
society, it will always have imperfections. Yet we are convinced that
the history of American journalism portrays the steady improvement in the
quality and accomplishments of the newspaper press as it has matured into
the newspaper of today which provides full coverage of the news of all
sides of controversial public affairs.
The United States is unique among the countries of the world in
guaranteeing in its Bill of Rights and in protecting throughout its
history the right of the people to have a free press and freedom of
speech. This is one of the rights given to the people by the Founding
Fathers which has stood us in good stead throughout our history. No
dictator could ever take over this country and subjugate our people
because the people are guaranteed the right to have a vigilant press.
If any segment of the press is not vigilant in the public interest,
the people will decide its fate.
Accuracy and fairness in news reporting prevails today because
these qualities inhere in the competitive struggle for newspaper survival.
Critics who pick and choose particular incidents of news reporting
which they subjectively attack as biased or distorted ignore the
paramount lesson of journalism history that, whether their criticisms
are unfounded or justified, honest and responsible journalism cannot
be legislated into publishers or reporters.
Newspaper readers are and must remain the final judges of the
quality of journalism practiced by the daily newspapers of America.
POWER OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE
THE PRESS
ANPA raises no question as to the authority of this Subcommittee to
inquire into the general business practices existing in the newspaper
publishing business and in other media of mass communications. This
Subcommittee has jurisdiction to explore matters substantially related
to courses of conduct by newspapers which the Subcommittee believes may
be questioned as incompatible with the Federal antitrust and trade
regulation laws.
We do not readily see, however, that inquiry into such other areas
of general laws to which newspapers are subject, such as libel law,
tax laws and the like, would be pertinent. In addition, there are certain
other matters ARPA believes are beyond the scope of valid legislative
enactment. In brief, these matters relate to the functions of the
press in gathering and disseminating information. Every Supreme Court
decision since the landmark case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931 has made
it indisputable that freedom of the press under the First Amendaent protects
the sole discretion of each individual newspaper publisher independently
to decide upon the news he chooses to print, the editorial comment
he elects to make, and the advertising he decides to accept for
publication, as discussed in detail in a Legal Analysis presented for
incorporation in the record as Appendix A to this statement.
The ANPA respectfully reserves the right of newspaper publishers
to object to any inquiry by this Subcommittee which might encroach
on the aforementioned area. We are most appreciative of the Chairman's
repeated assurances that these matters will not be the subject of inquiry
at these hearings.
In his address before the Overseas Press Club in New York on
September 27, 1962, Chairman Celler announced the main subjects of
these Hearings. The title of his address itself describes the core of
the concern which prompted this inquiry -- namely, "The Concentration
of Ownership and the Decline of Competition in News Media."
In more specific form, Mr. Celler expressed concern regarding the
continuing decline in the number of daily American newspapers and an
increase in the number of single newspaper cities. Coupled with this
concern, he singled out newspaper mergers and common ownership of
newspapers by the so-called "chains", as well as common ownership of
newspaper-radio-television. He implied that these conditions may be
related to a decrease in competition in the variety of news, views
and advertising media.
A major premise of Chairman Celler's talk appears to be that newspaper
readers, radio listeners and television viewers are being deprived of
the multiplicity of sources of information and ideas which is the
responsibility of the press and other media to provide.
The ANPA position is that these inferences are refuted by the
weight of historical and current evidence. In other parts of this
presentation, we shall demonstrate affirmatively by factual data and
economic analysis that in structure, behavior and accomplishments,
effective competition exists in the newspaper publishing business in
national and local or regional markets. We shall show that this
effective competition exists not only in newspaper media but in all
other media of communication with which newspapers compete.
In that connection, we have had the consultation services of
Professor Jesse W. Markham, of the Department of Economics of Princeton
University. He will appear as a witness at the conclusion of my
testimony to present a detailed Economic Analysis of Competition in
the Newspaper Publishing Business and its relation to the other media
of mass communication.
The factual picture in the United States is one
of amazing diversity of sources of news, views and
ideas in the complex of the newspaper press and other
mass media of communication by print, sight and sound.
Indeed, one might suppose that any informed American citizen, as
a matter of mere daily observation and experience, would readily attest
to the plurality of sources of information in the form of news and views
available to him. One might also understand why an administrative
agency or a court might take official notice of this diversity without
requiring statistical and factual proof.
In his Overseas Press Club address Chairman Celler also expressed
a desire to seek answers to certain questions he enumerated.
Three questions concern newspaper mergers. He asked, "First: Are
newspaper mergers 'good' or 'bad', or 'of no consequence'?" We
interpret this to mean, are newspaper mergers legal or illegal under
the Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act or under
the Sherman Act. This is a question that can only be answered properly
through a case by case adjudication on the whole record before an
administrative agency, the Federal Trade Commission, subject to judicial
review, or by the Department of Justice through a federal District Court
also subject to appellate review. Likewise, a private party by a suit
for injunction or for treble damages may seek to have the legality of
a newspaper merger tested in the courts.
Chairman Celler next asked, "Second: Are newspaper mergers
inevitable under existing conditions?" He was referring particularly
to a merger which results in what he labels "a local newspaper monopoly."
The attached ANPA legal memorandum shows how oversimplified and
misleading the words "newspaper monopoly" may be, especially when the
competition of radio, television and other media are not taken into
account in any given relevant geographic market in the lines of commerce
involved. Yet apart from this, the inevitability of a particular
newspaper merger as a means of economic survival for the one remaining
newspaper, or for the continued publication of two newspapers under
common ownership, can only be determined before appropriate tribunals
as part of the judicial process.
Chairman Celler's third question was this: "Third: What are
these conditions (i.e., conditions affecting newspaper mergers) and
how can they be changed?" We are cooperating with this Subcommittee's
inquiry into general conditions existing in the newspaper publishing
business with respect to mergers. Whether those conditions can be
changed by valid Congressional enactments is another question.
For example, we believe it would be clearly unconstitutional for
Congress to enact special legislation aimed at curbing only newspaper
mergers, nor do we seek special legislation on behalf of newspaper
mergers. Amended Section 7 of the Clayton Act is a general antitrust
provision on mergers which does not exempt newspapers. The same applies
to the Sherman Act. If a particular newspaper merger is questioned and
the jurisdictional prerequisites of interstate commerce and other
jurisdictional requirements are established, ANPA believes it must be
left to the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice to decide
whether or not to institute suit. We do not see how this Subcommittee can
propose valid legislation to prevent or unscramble newspaper mergers which
do not transgress either amended Section 7 of the Clayton Act or the more
stringent tests of violation of the Sherman Act.
In addition to believing that existing mergers in the newspaper field
do not Justify any generalization that they have caused a decline in
newspaper competition, we also take the position that the First Amendment
forbids Congress from making such mergers illegal per se. To single out
newspaper mergers would be discriminatory against newspaper publishers.
LABOR UNION PRACTICES IN THE
NEWSPAPER FIELD AS RELATED TO
MHE SUBCOMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
The ANPA is thoroughly cognizant of the provisions of Section 6 of the
Clayton Act and of the Norris-LaGuardia Act exempting labor unions from
the reach of the antitrust laws under most circumstances. We point out,
however, that by the very nature of these exemptions it is both pertinent
and appropriate that the Subcommittee review this field to ascertain
whether or not these exemptions should be narrowed, broadened, left alone
or repealed.
This is particularly so since it is self-evident in the newspaper field,
as in many other fields, that there have in recent times been charges
from various sources of union practices of a restrictive nature encroaching
upon management prerogatives which would clearly be violative of the
antitrust laws in the absence of the exemption of the Clayton and Norris-
LaGuardia Acts. We make no judgment in this statement as to the truth
18
or lack thereof of these charges. We do suggest that they represent a
subject which should properly be brought before this Subcommittee and
that a conclusion be reached by the Subcommittee as to whether or not
action should be taken in this field.
We noted with interest a question asked the Chairman and his
answer at a recent press interview:
Q. "Are you going to look into union labor costs?"
A. "Yes. I realize that the costs of labor and newsprint are
bedeviling newspaper publishers and it would be very unfair
not to go into that."
We believe it important that the Subcommittee thoroughly explore the
facets of this vital subject which clearly lie within its jurisdiction,
fully recognizing that other matters relating to labor come within the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and Labor and the
Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Stated another way, there
is no juridical reason why this Subcommittee could not recommend legislation
of an antitrust nature designed to curb union practices if these practices
can be shown to be aimed at or result in direct restraints on commercial
competition. Unions have been held subject to the antitrust laws in
those instances where the courts have found their conduct to be beyond
the scope of the above-cited exemptions. The subject of such antitrust
violations is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and its
investigatory powers.
Further discussion of the scope of the exemptions as interpreted
by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts is beyond the purpose of
this statement. We are certain that the Subcommittee staff has ample
information in the area to which we have addressed ourselves and you
will find reference to this subject in the attached ANPA Legal Analysis.
We suggest that in light of the unfortunate events of the past
few months involving strikes against several large newspapers that the
Subcommittee has a duty to reach a determination as to whether these
labor union exemptions from the antitrust laws are compatible with the
current national public interest.
We know of no way in which the Subcommittee can investigate
increasing costs of labor in newspaper publishing without an inquiry
into this field. It may be determined that the labor unions' demands
have been reasonable and that their approach to collective bargaining
has in no way violated antitrust principles. Were a conclusion to the
contrary reached, the Subcommittee could then decide what kind of
legislation it would recommend to correct the abuses disclosed.
ANPA's position on this point can be simply summed up as a
recommendation for an equitable, non-discriminatory inquiry into the
relevant antitrust aspects of general application to labor and management
in this field. An investigation of competition among daily newspapers
and with other media of mass communications could not be complete without
a thorough inquiry into those areas encompassing labor union power and
practices relevant to our national antitrust policy.
COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING BUSINESS
The ANPA Economic Analysis to be presented by Professor Markham
deals with the business functioning of competition in relevant newspaper
20
markets. This ranges over news, advertising and circulation competition
in the operations of newspapers. Newspaper publishing is a business
with all the attendant problems of prices, advertising and circulation
rates, costs, and growth in circulation and advertising revenue on which
profits depend. In addition, the First Amendment guarantees the press
an immunity from governmental interference not given to any other profit-
making private enterprise. Granted that newspaper publishing as a
business has no special immunity from the applicability of general laws,
such as antitrust laws and the labor laws, it does not follow that the
thrust of these laws is the same for the press as for industries which
have no special status under the First Amendment in the performance
of their functions.
For example, the First Amendment precludes Congress from treating
the press as a public utility, even though newspaper publishers regard
themselves as at all times under the responsibility of serving the
people of this nation for whom freedom of the press is guaranteed.
The ANPA Legal Analysis of antitrust newspaper cases confirms that
the Supreme Court and lower federal courts carefully distinguish wherein
the business of the press in its commercial aspects is subject to the
antitrust laws and, on the other hand, the functions of the press which
are immune from antitrust or other regulatory controls under general laws.
This distinction applies to questions of alleged concentration of ownership,
and other like matters of inquiry by this Subcommittee. We believe the
courts will continue to recognize that newspaper publishing is not the
same as ordinary industrial enterprises and will strike down the5 use
of the antitrust laws when they confuse the commercial activities of a
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
ERRATA SHEET
Deletions and Corrections
to
NEWSPAPERS 1963.
Page 174 -
Page 180 -
In second paragraph, second live, eliminate
from end between exclusive and dealing.
In next to last line third word should read
"As".
"of" third word
"as" instead of
Page 181 -
Page 185 -
Page 260 -
Page 288 -
Page 292 -
Page 295 -
Page 297 -
Page 321 -
Last indent first word should be "we" instead of "We".
5th line of same indent, third word from end, should be "no"
instead of "not".
Third paragraph from bottom, next to last line should read
"obligated to serve all comers without discrimination and on".
Fourth line from top should read "that radio and television
are stiff competitors of newspapers".
Next to last line of first indent should read "preserve the
'failing company' doctrine of International".
First line should read "companies, a test which was the focus
of the original Section 7".
Footnote 8/ second word should be "Bock" instead of "Book".
Footnote 2/ 2nd line should read "Judicial Recognition of
Intramedia and Intermedia Effective Competition in the".
Delete the last three words in the next line of this foot-
note. Third line correctly reads "Relevant Market."
Fifth line should read "Reason approach. Thus, in Maple
Flooring Mfrs. Ass'n. v United".
newspaper and the goals its publisher sets in deciding the kind and
quality of newspaper he elects to publish.
Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., is the author of Government and
Mass Communications, published in 1947 under the auspices of the Commission
on Freedom of the Press.
Professor Chafee warned against the fallacy that enforcement of the
antitrust laws can achieve the diffusion of newspaper ownership and plurality
of daily papers in every community. This theoretical and abstract goal
must yield to the economic reality that a community may be able to support
only one daily newspaper. Likewise, acquisition of that paper by the
owner of another newspaper or the owner of a group of newspapers in
another market or other markets may be the only way to economic survival
of the single newspaper in the city in question.
If it is assumed, contrary to what the ANPA believes is the factual
picture, that there is danger from concentration of newspaper or intermedia
ownership, we would ask, as did Professor Chafee: "What assurance have we
that the Sherman Act can do more for the press than for commodities?", so
far as concentration is concerned. We would ask the same question for the
Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act. For we are
convinced that the antitrust laws play their appointed role in the newspaper
field primarily by dealing with abuses the Government or a private party
can prove before a proper tribunal. The ANPA believes its over-all factual
study demonstrates that there is no present danger from excessive concentration
of ownership power in the newspaper business in the United States.
Ownership of Newspaper Groups
At this point let us examine briefly the facts of competition vs.
alleged concentration of ownership. A leading authority on the subject of
newspaper ownership and intermedia competition is Professor Raymond B. Nixon
of the University of Minnesota who is editor of Journalism Quarterly.
For several years Professor Nixon has compiled statistics on ownership
of daily newspapers by "newspaper groups" for publication in various reference
sources. He compiled and published these figures for the 50-year period
1910-1960 in the Winter 1961 Journalism Quarterly.
The number of groups and the number of newspapers in the groups have
increased steadily since 1910, but the average number of newspapers per group
has been declining in recent years. Professor Nixon found an average of 5.1
newspapers per group in 1960.
ANPA compiled similar data in 1962 and found that the average had
declined further to 4.7, the lowest number of newspapers per group since 1910.
The following table tells the story:
NEWSPAPER GROUPS
1910 1923 1930 1940 1945 1954 1960 1962 (ANPA Records)
Number of
Newspaper
Groups 13 31 55 60 76 95 109 134
Number of
Newspapers
in Groups 62 153 311 319 368 485 560 626
Average
Number
Per Group 4.7 4.9 5.6 5.3 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.7
The ANPA research in 1962 also showed that the daily newspaper business
in the United States is controlled by 1,160 different ownerships. This is
a net figure after taking into consideration all groups and all instances
of morning and evening newspapers under single ownership in some cities.
This broad base of ownership hardly indicates cause for concern over any
form of centralized control of the press in the United States.
Professor Nixon summarizes the trends in newspaper ownership this
way:
"Concentration of ownership in the daily newspaper
field has been becoming more intensive and less extensive.
That is, local 'monopolies,' inter-city dailies and small
regional groups have been increasing, while large national
chains -- in the United States, at least -- have declined
in size and circulation. At the same time the long-term
trend in total daily circulation has been steadily upward."
It is unquestioned that the number of cities with only one daily
newspaper has been steadily increasing. It is pertinent to note, however,
that the number of cities with one or more daily newspapers has also been
increasing steadily due to the establishment of daily newspapers in cities
which previously did not have a daily. Professor Nixon's study just
referred to shows an all-time high of 1,461 daily newspaper cities in 1960.
This is a reflection of facts previously mentioned that new and rapidly
growing suburban communities will attract entrepreneurs willing to invest
in the establishment of a new daily newspaper when the potential for readers
and advertisers is sufficient to warrant the capital investment. Frequently
these new publications begin as weeklies, later convert to twice-weekly
and eventually become dailies.
Regardless of the size or location of a city having only one daily
newspaper, there is diversified intra-media and inter-media competition
in the relevant market for both news and advertising. The ANPA Economic
Analysis to be discussed by Professor Markham will demonstrate this with
results of a national survey conducted for this purpose.
It clearly reveals competition in the news field among the local daily
newspapers, out of town metropolitan newspapers, weekly newspapers, specialized
local publications, local radio and television stations and news magazines.
Among these media the average person faces a problem not in being forced
to get his news from only one source but in selecting those which he prefers.
In the field of advertising, the local daily newspaper has a mass of
competitors. For national advertising it must compete with network and local
television, radio, magazines, metropolitan daily newspapers circulating
in its community, outdoor billboards, direct mail, specialized publications,
weekly newspapers, and even advertising gimmicks such as match books and
ball point pens. For local advertising its direct competitors are other
local publications such as weekly newspapers and shoppers, direct mail,
outdoor billboards, school and college publications, radio and television
stations, telephone directory "yellow pages", handbills and other local
advertising devices.
Another important facet of competition which the local daily newspaper
publisher confronts is competition for the reader's time. The average
citizen today is literally inundated with optional uses of his time for
reading, listening, watching or engaging in recreation. This massive
competition for the reader's time has been the subject of intensive study
by newspaper publishers and editors to seek the most effective methods
of interesting readers in the news, feature, editorial and advertising content
of the individual newspaper.
Another facet of competition which is present every day for every daily
newspaper is circulation competition. The many overlapping circulation areas
of each newspaper provide competition with other newspapers seeking to attract
new readers. This is competition of quality of the newspaper content,
timeliness and efficiency of the delivery system and price to the reader.
It cannot be ignored. Its existence is obvious when it is realized that
in every city, town, village and hamlet in the United States, every person
has a daily choice of so many different newspapers -- plus the many other
news sources also available to him.
Radio and television also carry responsibilities in providing news
to the public. As news media they compete with newspapers. They have
access to the same nationalnews wire services as newspapers. Their
willingness to invest in local news coverage and their effectiveness in
providing it can be judged only by their listeners and viewers.
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING
In any consideration of mergers of newspapers and the reasons for
such mergers, we must examine the technological developments in newspaper
production since the end of World War II.
ANPA has prepared a detailed statement on technological developments
in newspaper publishing as a part of this presentation for incorporation
in the record of this Subcommittee's hearings as Appendix B to this Statement.
Briefly summarized, the production processes of daily newspapers changed
relatively little prior to World War II, but in the postwar years
revolutionary new equipment and concepts have been and continue to be introduced.
In recent years technical obsolescence has become a major problem, particularly
for metropolitan newspapers where the pressures of rising costs have been
great. The higher wage and salary levels, the higher costs associated
with delivery in traffic-congested urban areas, and the higher costs of
more advanced equipment have combined to force publishers to spend large
sums on plant and equipment modernization. ANPA surveys show daily
newspapers are now spending more than $100,000,000 annually on capital
outlay for modernization.
New equipment has become available in all departments of daily
newspaper production -- faster hot metal typesetting machines and photographic
composing machines in the composing room, automated plate-casting equipment
in the stereotype department, faster etching in the engraving department,
faster and more efficient full-color rotary presses and newer offset presses
for the newspaper press room, and automatic counting, stacking and bundling
equipment in the mailroom.
All these new items of equipment cost more than their older counterparts
but they are necessary for the modern daily newspaper to compete successfully.
For example, a manually operated linecasting machine cost less than $10,000
before the war but the modern high speed, tape operated machines introduced
in the last few years cost $24,000. Press costs have doubled since before
the war and more press equipment is necessary, as circulation and the
demand for advertising and editorial color printing increases. 7he cost
of equipping a medium size plant to photocompose ads with the necessary
darkrooms and rapid etch equipment is over $100,000. Prior to 1950
linecasting equipment in hot metal for this purpose was priced at one-
half this amount.
Some Advancements Minimized
All these developments are highly desirable from the standpoint of
newspapers in better serving their readers and in maintaining their
competitive position, but many of the advantages of such technological
advancements unfortunately have been minimized by adamant attitudes of
some labor unions toward preservation of needless jobs. For example,
the Teletypesetter came into use 30 years ago, but publishers in many
cities are still restricted under their union contracts in the amount
and type of Teletypesetter tape they will be permitted to use. Many
newspapers are still beset with the costs of fantastically useless
featherbedding known as "bogus", a union rule requiring that local
advertising supplied in ready-to-print mat form at the advertiser's
preference must be reset in type, proofread and corrected after the ad
has already run. Then the type which has been made perfect is thrown
away because it was not needed in the first place.
The way to make more jobs in the newspaper publishing business is
for publishers to modernize the entire production process, so that the
entire enterprise can compete successfully and thereby grow to the mutual
advantage of management in profitable operation and to the employees in
more Jobs at higher pay.
CROSS-OWNERSHIP OF NEWSPAPERS AND
BROADCAST STATIONS
One of the announced facets of these Hearings relates to the cross-
ownership of newspapers and radio or television stations.
Again, we can find authoritative comment based on reliable factual
data prepared by Professor Raymond B. Nixon who has been quoted previously.
In his studies, Professor Nixon used the term "media voice" to mean
independent ownership. For example, if a newspaper or newspaper
combination owns a radio or television station in any city, then all
the media under that ownership are treated as one voice in his studies.
This chart depicts the growth in inter-media competition:
UNITS
4000. _.
3500 - - -
3000
2500
2000
GROWTH OF COMPETITION: /
ALL MEDIA VOICES /
3679 VOICES IN 1461 CITIES I
,- -----
1 '
I
I
...... o ._
-- ----/----y---
/' 33Z4 COMPETING VOICES
1500 IN 1106 CITIES
1500---- ---
500-
In 1960 there were 1,461 cities in which one or more daily
newspapers were published. In 1,106 of these cities there were 3,324
competing voices and only 355 single-voice cities remained. Professor
Nixon makes this comment about the "single voice" cities: "Most of
these places are so close to a large city that the absence of any
locally competing voices appears to be of little importance."
In addition, we should note that 1,014 other cities without a
daily newspaper do have daily radio or television service, and in only
29 of these cities does a local weekly own or control local broadcastAng.
And what of the quality of the service offered by broadcast
stations owned by newspapers or persons affiliated with newspapers? When
asked to define his attitude toward newspaper ownership of radio and
television properties, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton N.
Minow told the Gannett Newspapers in a 1962 interview:
"Historically, FCC has held the view that all
things being equal, it is desirable to prefer non-
newspaper applicants. We should spread the voices
of communication into as many hands as possible.
That is sound theory.
"In actual practice, we find that the better
broadcasting stations in America are owned and
operated by newspapers. The answer is, newspapers
are part of the community, and their stations are
not up for sale.
"Newspapers are less prone to buy and sell
and trade in IV stations, which is one of the major
problems in broadcasting. Another answer is, the
newspapers are community and journalism oriented.
They put more emphasis on local problems and issues."
The Congress has never authorized any discrimination for or against
newspapers in the granting by F.C.C. of contested broadcast licenses.
The criteria to be applied by F.C.C. are solely related to the relative
merits of the contesting parties and their abilities to serve the public.
The ANPA has consistently advocated a policy in government that
newspapers or persons connected with newspapers should have the same
rights to compete for radio and television licenses as all other citizens.
We believe Chairman Minow's comment eloquently states the case for fair
and equal treatment of newspapers in contested broadcast license proceedings.
LIMITED ROLE OF ANTITRUST LAW ENFORCEMENT
AS APPLIED TO NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING
Perhaps one of the greatest benefits which can flow from these
Hearings is a clearer understanding of the constitutional dangers in
any Government effort to impose controls over the press through measures
designed to increase the number and variety of "voices" in the newspaper
field. The same applies to radio, television and indeed all media of
mass communication.
It is noteworthy that the late Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., was
one of the most articulate spokesmen on freedom of speech and press.
He was generally regarded as an ardent progressive thinker. Yet years
ago he warned against the mirage of an expectation that the antitrust
laws can be used as constitutional means for dealing with the objectives
and performance of a free press as viewed by proponents of increased
government intervention.
She members of the Commission on Freedom of the Press included
persons who have been nationally known as strong advocates of a greater
role of Government in affairs of the press. It, therefore, is especially
relevant to summarize Professor Chafee's conclusions.
Chafee first asks two questions. "First, what do we want from the
press?" "Second, will the antitrust laws give us what we want?"
Professor Chafee then gives his reflections which lead to his
conclusion that there are dangers in the actual operation of the antitrust
laws to the liberty of the press. He said:
"Besides being unlikely to give us the kind
of press we want, the antitrust laws may, if
extensively used, produce the kind of press we
do not want."
Chafee stresses the danger that a marked increase in use of antitrust
laws against newspapers or other communications media would vest in
Department of Justice officials and the courts "a large measure of control
over the press." Professor Chafee arrives at this over-all conclusion:
"I see no way out of this dilemma except
a very sparing use of the antitrust laws against
communications industries, in accordance with
past practice."
In answer to the basic question, "how can society get the kind of
a press it needs", Professor Chafee's final comment gives the essence of
the wisdom of the First Amendment's commands and goals:
"The press should not be responsible for its
quality and points of view to government any more
than to the advertisers or friends of the owner.
The true responsibility of the press is to the
individuals who read and listen and inwardly digest."
We believe this Subcommittee would look in vain for a more realistic
and statesmanlike version of the relation of the Government to a free
press than the foregoing summation of Professor Chafee's perceptive
comments and conclusions.
Since Professor Chafee's two volumes on Government and Mass Communications
were written, antitrust newspaper cases adjudicated in the courts
eloquently confirm his conclusion that sparing rather than excessive
antitrust enforcement against newspapers is the way to determine genuine
antitrust abuses in case by case adjudication.
The impressive fact is that in only a few cases has a newspaper or
a newspaper organization been found in violation of the antitrust, laws.
REPORT OF BRITISH ROYAL COMMISSION
ON THE PRESS
A recent Report of the British Royal Commission on the Press has
attracted attention in the United States and has been noted by you,
Mr. Chairman, in your public statements. It deals with problems of
newspapers which seem to be similar to those confronting the press
in this country. The similarity, however, is superficial.
The circumstances of the press in the United States differ markedly
from those which prevail in Great Britain. The concentration of newspaper
circulation in the mass nationally circulated London dailies represents
a situation which could scarcely be more markedly different from that
which prevails in this country.
Selling prices of newspapers, distribution methods, relationships
with government and many other factors are strikingly different in
Great Britain. The very division made by the Commission itself between
"quality" and "popular" newspapers is not one to strike a sympathetic
response in the United States. The Commission itself states that "It
is hard to define what is a good newspaper and what is a bad newspaper
except in terms of the success which it has in attracting the readers
whom it sets out to serve."
The recommendations of the British Royal Commission in 1962 relate
to three subjects: (1) a requirement that newspapers disclose their
ownership and control; (2) a reorganization of the General Council
of the Press to give it more power to deal with ethics of the press;
and (3) a recommendation for a Press Amalgamation Court to pass on
proposed newspaper mergers.
With reference to ownership and control of newspapers, this
disclosure is already a requirement of law under the postal statutes.
With reference to ethics of the press, this recommendation itself
is an example of the different role of government and the press in
Great Britain compared with the United States.
With reference to a Press Amalgamation Court, the required disclosure
that a proposed merger was under consideration by the court would so
undermine the weaker newspaper that it would lose its value to any
potential purchaser and could well be forced out of business.
Further details about the British Royal Commission Report and
our comment appear in our appended Legal Analysis.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we wish to emphasize to you, Mr. Chairman, our
appreciation for your often-expressed interest in the well-being
of the newspaper business and your understanding of the vital role
of the free press in the economic, social and political life of our
free country.
The daily newspapers of the United States are constantly seeking
to improve the service to their readers and advertisers -- the people
of the United States. A public airing of the true legal and economic
picture of the press through these Hearings can be extremely beneficial
in promoting better public understanding of the role of newspapers.
In turn, this promotes also a better understanding of the vital
role of the individual citizen in deciding the kind of newspaper
service he wants. The citizen exercises this judgment every day. We
suggest that the verdict of the people is favorable to newspapers
because nearly 60 million copies are bought every day. Newspapers
go into the homes of more than 85% of the families in the United States
on an average day. This further means newspapers must continue to strive
to render even better service in the face of more competition than ever
before.
I would like to close by repeating in abbreviated form the four
major points which we believe this presentation demonstrates:
The assumption that there is a continuing decline in competition
in the newspaper publishing business is based on erroneous premises.
The facts demonstrate clearly that there is vigorous competition in
the dissemination of news and advertising, both among newspapers and
with other media.
There is no factual cause for alarm about changes in ownership
of newspapers and other media, either through newspaper mergers, group
ownership of newspapers, or common ownership of newspapers and radio
or television stations. More media voices compete for the attention
of the United States public today than ever before.
Changes in the structure of the newspaper business in the United
States have been the result of natural economic, social and political
forces in a free society. In the extensive population changes of the
post-war years, new daily newspapers have been established in rapidly
growing suburban areas and smaller cities while in some of the largest
cities, some daily newspapers have suspended or merged, as a result
of economic pressures of rising costs.
The newspaper business today is more enterprising in serving
readers and advertisers, more dedicated to public service and more
vigorous in its competition with other media than ever before. Newspapers
neither seek nor want any subsidy or special legislation from Government,
but rather we rely on the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech
and of the press as adequate protection of the right to compete in a
free enterprise economy with any and all media for the dissemination of
news and advertising.
PART TWO
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN
TEE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR JESSE MARKHAM,
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY, IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT
OF STANFORD SMITH, GENERAL MANAGER OF
THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIA-
TION BEFORE THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
MARCH 14, 1963, WASHINGTON, D. C.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COMPETITION IN
THE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS
I.
INTRODUCTION
This study is undertaken in response to the expressed concern of the Anti-
trust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee over "the concentration of
ownership in communications media, especially the trend toward newspaper consoli-
dations."
Certain aspects of these issues clearly lie beyond the reach of economic
analysis. From Thomas Jefferson down to the current inquiries by the Federal
Communications Commission, a free expression of ideas has been a recognized,
accepted, and i-nquestioned prerequisite to the creation and maintenance of a
free and democratic society. Concepts such as "free expression of ideas" and
"free and democratic society" have more than mere economic content; they embody
fundamental principles by which civilized people govern themselves.
Moreover, the history of newspaper publishing in the United States reveals
abundant evidence that publishers are frequently motivated by factors other
than the usual economic incentives associated with the typical business firm.
Many newspapers, especially in the nineteenth century, entered the business to
crusade for a cause. Some were house organs of major and minor political parties;
others crusaded for local, regional or national issues; still others reflected
the editorial objectives and creative urges of their publishers.
There is abundant evidence that the press still helps mold public opinion
but newspapers must be alert, as is the case of all commercial enterprises, to
the general economic proposition that in the long run survival, absent continuous
subsidies from family fortunes or other income producing business ventures,
depends on total revenues equal to or greater than total costs. But it is
important to bear in mind that the conventional tools of economic analysis,
designed to explain the behavior of conventional profits-maximizing firms, are
not strictly applicable to the newspaper business.
Nevertheless, with these important modifications, newspapers may be mean-
ingfully analyzed as business entities operating in definable markets. In turn,
the markets in which they operate may be subjected to the economic standards of
effective competition. In broad terms, newspapers are in the information-
disseminating business. The information may be divided into two related but
distinct categories: (1) information of current interest to the public, pop-
ularly referred to as "news", including the reporting of international, national,
state and local events; editorial comment, and features, and (2) advertising,
which may be further divided into retail, general and classified.
The public buys newspapers to obtain both types of information, but the
price it pays often does not cover the cost of the newsprint on which the news
appears, much less the total cost of gathering and printing the information the
newspaper contains. The difference between the total revenue of a newspaper
and the receipts from subscriptions and single copy sales is made up of receipts
from advertising. Thus while the information generally referred to as "news"
and that referred to as "advertising" are marketed jointly, they are produced
under much different market conditions.
Newspaper publishers incur costs in gathering and disseminating "news" and
recover only a portion of these costs through receipts from the newspaper-buying
public; they are paid to transmit advertising to the public directly by the
advertiser. The differences in the nature of the two types of information and
the economic conditions under which they are produced warrant their treatment
as separate and distinct services. Broadly speaking, therefore, newspapers may
be viewed as operating in the news-disseminating market and in the advertising
market.
In assessing the effectiveness of competition in the news-disseminating
market the conventional criteria by which competition is judged, although not
entirely inapplicable, must be significantly modified. In the case of most
products and services, the effectiveness of competition often depends upon the
presence of a reasonably large number of competitors selling a near-homogeneous
product in the relevant market. That is, the more similar the products, the
higher the degree of competition in the market in which they are sold. The
higher the degree of competition the greater the assurance that the industry
operates in the public interest.
When the product or service is information, however, competition is
enhanced by diversity, or differentiation, rather than by homogeneity. To
illustrate, the value of a second car to a one-car family, even though the
second is a perfect substitute for the first, may be relatively high. But the
value of another newspaper identical with one just acquired is virtually zero.
Congress, the courts, and regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communica-
tions Commission have long recognized that the kind of competition that best
serves the public interest in information dissemination is product rather
than simple price competition; that is, competition that comprises a wide
variety of news coverage, editorial views and features made available to the
public through a wide variety of editorially independent media.
It is obvious that in these circumstances the relevant market for purposes
of assessing the workability of competition in Infomratlon dissemination must be
defined much more broadly than the daily newspaper market in a given metropoli-
tan area, city, town, or county. The radio and television stations, weekly
newspapers and magazines, daily newspapers imported from other cities, and a
wide variety of specialized publications, all compete with local daily newspapers
in transmitting information and news to the citizens of any specific geographi-
cal area.
It must be emphasized that the Justification for including this wide
variety of news sources in the same market rests on the unique features of the
Information-disseminating business the public's and public policy's preference
for diversity over homogeneity. Each of these types of media clearly possesses
distinctive features which make them far from perfect substitutes for each other.
Printed media rely entirely on visual perception, radio on audio perception,
and television on both. Competition within a given type of news source, for
example printed media, often may be less intense than competition among the
various news media. In the dissemination of local news the daily newspaper
competes with local radio and TV stations and local weekly newspapers; in na-
tional news coverage the competition among daily newspapers, radio, television,
weekly magazines and specialized publications may be more intense than that
between daily and weekly newspapers, or even between two dailies when one of
them specializes in strictly local news. But in spite of the differences among
media and the complexities of the partial market overlapping in the dissemina-
tion of various types of news, they are clearly competing news media.
As the various media compete with each other in the news-disseminating
market, it follows from the joint-service nature of news and advertising that
they also compete with each other in the advertising market. However, it does
not follow that the intensity of competition between any- two media is the same
in both markets, or that the effectiveness of competition between them should
be Judged on a basis of the same criteria.
The same diversity that makes for more effective competition in the news-
disseminating market gives each medium its distinctive characteristics as a
competitor in the advertising market. Moreover, the various entities that can
reasonably be included in both markets are not the same. For example, telephone
and other directories compete with newspapers for classified advertising but
cannot be included on the list of competitors in the news-disseminating market.
Similarly, direct mail and outdoor displays compete with all the news-disseminat-
ing media in the advertising market but not in the news-disseminating market.
Nevertheless, as is brought out in Table I appended to this statement, there is
reasonably high correlation in the number of competitors engaged in the dissemi-
nation of national and/or local news and the number of competitors in correspond-
ing categories of advertising.
II.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND SELECTED
LOCAL NEWS-DISSEMIMATION MARKETS
One of the most important developments of the twentieth century is the
rapid growth and spectacular change of the information-disseminating business.
Only four decades ago the public was completely dependent upon the printed
media for news.
As recently as 1920 the home radio set was a rarity and the home television
set unknown. By 1950 97 out of every 100 United States families had at least one
radio receiving set, and by 1960 90 out of every 100 families had at least one
television receiving set. Of each 100 families, 86 subscribe to at least one
daily newspaper and an additional number purchase them regularly from the news-
stands. Altogether, 583 television stations, 4,354 radio stations, 1,760 daily
newspapers, 8,178 weekly newspapers, and 8,616 periodicals including general
magazines and specialized publications convey the news and other information
to the American public.
Some discernible structural changes have accompanied this rapid pace of
growth and innovation (Table II). Between 1945 and 1960 the total number of
daily newspapers increased from 1,749 to 1,763. The number of dailies under
group ownership increased from 368 to 552. The number of cities having one or
more daily newspapers increased from 1,396 to 1,461. Between 1945 and 1959 the
number of standard broadcast and FM radio stations affiliated with newspapers
increased, but since 1953 the number has declined. Because of the phenomenal
growth in the number of such stations, the percentage of stations affiliated
with newspapers has declined substantially.
Over the same period the number of TV stations increased from 9 to 521.
Those with a newspaper affiliation accounted for 78.9 percent in 1953, but only
34.7 percent in 1959.
After allowances are made for joint and multiple ownership, the number of
independent entities engaged in disseminating news over the air and through
daily newspapers amounts to 4,993, comprising 1,211 daily newspapers, 2,957
standard broadcast, 485 FM, and 340 TV ownership interests. These data serve
only to indicate the overall structure of, and the growth and changes which have
occurred in what might be called the information-disseminating business; they do
not show the basic structure of the relevant market in which competition in
information-disseminating occurs.
The structural data more directly relevant to the state of competition must
reveal the number and variety of news sources readily available to members of
the news-consuming public where they reside. For this purpose, in the course
of this study tabulations were made for the number of news-disseminating and
advertising media serving 30 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 50
other counties in the United States.
The Standard Metropolitan Area Study
The Bureau of the Census identifies 215 Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (SMSA) in the United States. While as a practical matter the size of these
areas varies, they generally include the area falling within a 50-mile radius
of the center of the core city. The basis for Census recognition of such SMSA's
is that for many purposes they can be viewed and analyzed as a meaningful social
and economic unit. They are generally served by highly coordinated, sometimes
the same, intra-area transportation and utility systems and the same radio and
TV stations. Newspapers published in each of the component political units
generally circulate throughout the area, and persons tend to shift both resi-
dence and place of employment within such area without experiencing a sense of
leaving the "home town ."
The sample of 30 SMSA's covered in this study (Table III) was selected on
the following basis: Five such SMSA's were chosen from each of the four major
census regions: the Northeast, North Central, South and West. The largest SM1A
in each region was chosen from each of the population groups 1,000,000 and
over; 500,000 to 1,000,000; 250,000 to 500,000; 100,000 to 250,000; and under
100,000. To assure the inclusion of areas representing certain aspects of the
newspaper business relating directly to the issue of effective competition, 10
additional SMSA's were selected from those in which a newspaper merger or
suspension bad occurred within the past 10 years.
Nearly ninety per cent, or 26 out of the 30 SMSA core cities, contain at
least two daily newspapers; eight core cities contain from 3 to 13, the largest
number occurring in New York City. All of the SMSA's in this study except
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Manchester, New Hampshire, are served by at least
two local daily newspapers, a host of Sunday and weekly newspapers, local radio
and TV stations, and specialized publications. In addition they receive regu-
larly National Sunday Supplements, all the 19 selected national magazines on
which circulation data are available, and a large number of daily, Sunday and
weekly newspapers published outside the SMSA.
A reasonably typical SMSA is Albany-Schenectady-Troy, New York. This area
is served by 7 local daily newspapers, 1 Sunday newspaper, 8 weekly newspapers,
3 TV stations, 13 radio stations, and 18 local specialized publications. In
addition, 22 daily newspapers, 12 Sunday newspapers, 7 National Sunday Supple-
ments, and all of the 19 selected national magazines originating outside the
SMSA are circulated regularly in the area. Altogether, at least 110 sources
of news are accessible to the citizens of this area. The circulation of news-
papers, excluding weeklies for which data were not readily available, falling
in each of the classes indicated follows:
Circulation
Daily unday
Core City (2 dailies, 1 Sunday) 121,064 116,733
Rest of SMSA (5 dailies) 144,717
Coming in from outside SMSA
(22 dailies, 12 Sundays) 22,318 49,115
It is emphasized that the market under analysis here is news-disseminating.
The circulation of newspapers originating outside the SMSA, although certainly
significant, can scarcely be considered effective competitors to those In the
area for local and classified advertising. It is also very likely that such
non-local publications are less effective competitors in local news coverage
than the local radio and TV stations. However, it is clear that they are avail-
able alternative sources of news in whatever quantities residents of the SMSA
desire.
The four one-newspaper core cities in this study are of special interest
since they have sometimes been referred to as "monopoly" newspaper cities.
If by this it is meant that a single newspaper has effective control over the
news reaching the public, the data do not support this interpretation. A possi-
ble candidate for a "monopoly" newspaper town is Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
since its SMSA contains a single daily newspaper. However, the SMSA contains
4 weekly newspapers, one Sunday newspaper (core city), 2 TV and 4 radio stations,
and 6 specialized publications (all core city); plus 12 daily newspapers, 10
Sunday newspapers, 6 National Sunday Supplements, and 19 selected national
magazines originating outside the area circulating regularly in the Siouc Falls
SMSA. Altogether, residents of the area have access to 65 separate sources of
news.
The total number of news sources in our 30 StSA's studied is sufficiently
large to lay to rest any argument that a single newspaper, or any other news
source, monopolizes the news disseminated to the public.
However, the number of independently owned competing news media serving each
of the 30 SMSA's is somewhat smaller because of some joint ownerships. Even so,
after appropriate reductions in the number of news media to account for joint
ownerships, there remain enough sources of each type of news to assure effective
competition in the 30 areas (Table III). Moreover, because completely independ-
ent editorial policy and news disseminating often accompany joint ownership, a
simple reduction of the total news disseminating units to the number of Inde-
pendent ownership interests tends substantially to understate the structural
basis for competition.
Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that joint-ownership as such
has made for a less workably competitive market structure. Whether it does
depends almost entirely on how joint ownership comes about and on what the
feasible alternatives to joint ownership are. Where two newspapers are started
by a single ownership interest, or where an existing interest buys up a failing
newspaper in the same city, the presumption is that the total number of dailies
serving the city would be less were it not for joint ownership. The same is true
in cases where a TV station and newspaper can survive under joint ownership
but one would be a financial failure if operated independently.
A recently published study of the economics of joint ownership of media
makes a persuasive case that joint ownership substantially increases the pros-
pects for a given medium's survival and often may be the only means of survival.
The failure rate is generally much higher for independently owned than for
jointly owned media. Of the 200 newspapers with radio affiliations in 1940,
only 6, or 3.3 per cent, had been suspended by 1950; but of the 1,427 newspapers
not affiliated with radio, 110, or 7.7 per cent, had failed by 1950. A much
lower rate of suspension is also associated with radio and television stations
affiliated with newspapers.ia
The 50 County Study
Profiles of 50 different counties, similar to those of the 30 SMSA's, are
shown in Table IV. Since the counties were selected from those not appearing in
the list of SMSA's, they generally encompass the more sparsely populated areas
of the United States. The counties were selected by random sample of all the
places outside of SMSA's where daily newspapers are published.
A common characteristic of most of the 50 counties is fewness of daily
newspapers published in the county's principal city. Of the 50 principal cities,
36 contain a single daily newspaper that is also the only daily published in the
county. However, nearly all of these counties have several weekly newspapers and
specialized publications, a Sunday paper, several radio stations, access to a
fairly large number of TV stations, and have about ten to twelve daily and
slightly fewer Sunday newspapers from outside the county circulating within
their boundaries on a regular basis. In 28 of the 50 counties surveyed, the
number of daily newspapers circulating in the county is in excess of eight. In
i/ Harvey J. Levin, Broadcast Regulations and Joint Ownership of Media (New York,
New York University Press: 1960) pp. 96-99.
addition, the 19 selected national magazines and most of the national Sunday
Supplements circulate regularly in all 50 counties.
Fourteen of the 50 counties are served by more than one local daily. None
is under joint ownership. In 41 of the 50 counties there is no joint ownership
of radio and newspapers, and in none of these counties is there joint ownership
of newspapers and television.
III
THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL AND
SELECTED LOCAL ADVERTISING MARKETS
As pointed out earlier, newspapers operate in two seemingly distinct mar-
kets, advertising and news dissemination. But while these two markets are seem-
ingly distinct, they clearly are closely interdependent. The value of the
advertising space to the advertiser depends decisively on the newspaper's cir-
culation. On the other band, circulation depends in part on the advertising
carried, especially retail and classified advertising.
Approximately 70% of the total receipts of American daily and Sunday news-
papers is derived from selling advertising space, the other 305 represents
receipts from subscriptions and single copy sales. The inter-relationship of
these sources of revenue confronts the newspaper with a complex economic problem
not generally encountered by the ordinary business firm. For example, in most
industries, even .those characterized by substantial competition, rising costs
are expected to be at least partially compensated for by rising prices. How-
ever, if newspapers attempt to raise their subscription or newsstand price they
are likely to reduce circulation. Even though such a price increase may increase
total revenues derived from the sale of newspapers, the reduction in circulation
may lead to a decrease in demand for advertising space and therefore to a
reduction in total revenue. On the other hand, an increase in advertising rates,
absent comparable rate increases for rival advertising media, may lead to a
diversion of advertising expenditures away from newspapers to other media. Cost
and revenue decisions in the newspaper business, therefore, are more complex than
for most other types of business enterprises.
This portion of the study focuses on the structural basis for workable com-
petition in the advertising market as distinct from the information disseminating
market taken up in the previous section. Advertising is unquestionably one of
the most rapidly expanding activities in the American economy. In 1940 total
advertising expenditures amounted to slightly over $2 billion; by 1950 it had
reached $5.7 billion and in 1960 total advertising expenditures amounted to
nearly $12 billion. Expenditures for advertising have therefore slightly more
than doubled over the past decade. But while the volume of advertising expendi-
tures has been growing the number of independent business firms serving as
advertising media has been growing at an' even more spectacular rate. Between
1940 and 1959 the total number of operating radio stations in the United States
increased from 814 to 3,904; over the same period the total number of TV sta-
tions increased from 6 to 521. Between 1940 and 1961 the total number of
periodicals, including magazines and specialized publications published in the
United States increased from 6,468 to 8,616; the number of business publications
from 1,330 to 2,804; and the number of pieces of third-class mail the class of
mail used most often for direct advertising received by each person in the
United States increased from 41 to 100 between 1945 and 1960. Over the same
period, 1945-1960, the number of daily newspapers increased from 1,749 to 1,763
(Table V).
These changes in the composition of firms engaged in advertising and the
widely different growth rates among media have had substantial effects on the
division of the advertising dollar among media (Table VI). In 1935 45% of all
advertising dollars were spent on newspaper advertising; the remaining 55% were
spent on radio, outdoor advertising and a variety of printed media. Television,
of course, had not yet entered the picture. By 1961 advertising expenditures
in newspapers accounted for 31%, even though they had risen from $.8 billion to
$3.6 billion, and television accounted for 14%. Participation by other media
in advertising revenue remained considerably more stable, although radio par-
ticipation rose steadily between 1935 and the advent of television in 1945, and
by 1961 bad declined again to approximately its 1935 position.
The fluctuating shares of various media in total advertising expenditures
alone would suggest competition in the advertising market. Technological
innovations have imparted to the advertising business a highly dynamic charac-
ter. As new advertising methods and media are introduced, the share going to
older established media tend to decline. The process is continuous. In 1920
any advertiser, whether national or local, could advertise only in the various
printed media. The 1920's and 1930's saw the spectacular rise of radio; the
1950's and 1960's have marked the television revolution. As new media are
introduced the established media are subjected to increased competitive pres-
sures.
Broadly speaking, there are three distinct advertising markets: national
advertising, local advertising, and classified advertising. In national adver-
tising the level of concentration is extremely low much lower than in most
important businesses in the United States. Most of the various types of media
contain a substantial number of firms; yet, in 1961 no single media accounted
for as much as 10% of total national advertising. The three major television
networks, engaged primarily in national advertising, accounted for only 7% of
total advertising. The four largest daily newspapers in terms of total
revenues, the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, New York News, aid Los Angeles
Times, together accounted for an insignificant 1.6% of total U. S. national
advertising, and for only 14% of national newspaper advertising. It is clear
that no single firm or group of firms accounts for a substantial share of the
roughly $7 billion spent annually on national advertising.
The data required for calculating the level of concentration in local
advertising are not available. No statistical agency, government or private,
breaks down advertising expenditures by cities, metropolitan areas, or coun-
ties. However, the wide range of alternatives open to local advertisers is
shown in Tables III and IV.
In all the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas the range of alterna-
tives is substantial. In large metropolitan areas such as New York and Chicago
the number of independent firms engaged in local advertising runs into the
hundreds. In the core city of New York alone the local advertiser can select
among 13 daily newspapers, 7 Sunday newspapers, 49 weekly newspapers, 6 televi-
sion stations, 28 radio stations, and 471 direct-mail lettershops. The number
of firms in each category serving the entire Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area is much larger. In the smaller SMSA's the number of independent firms
serving local advertisers is considerably smaller but is still substantial.
Again, as in the case of the news disseminating market analysis, the
Albany area may be viewed as fairly typical. The core city of Albany contains
two daily, one Sunday and three weekly newspapers, two television stations,
four radio stations, and thirteen direct-mail lettershops, a total of 25
local advertising outlets. In the entire SMSA, the total number of local
advertising outlets amounts to 54.
As would be expected from the data developed in the 50 counties study for
assessing the level of concentration in the news. disseminating market, the num-
ber of alternatives open to local advertisers in the more sparsely populated
regions of the United States is considerably smaller. With only a few excep-
tions, however, local advertisers in these counties have the option of using at
least one daily newspaper, a television station, several radio stations or the
facilities of direct-mail lettershops.
In all local markets the number of effective competitors in classified
advertising is considerably smaller. For most individuals who are seeking a
job, attempting to rent a house, or trying to sell one of a variety of personal
assets, there is no effective substitute for the classified ad section of the
local newspaper. However, local radio stations have begun to broadcast classi-
fied ads and telephone and other directories can be considered effective competi-
tors of newspapers in the limited sector of the classified advertising market
where the advertiser seeks a listing of long duration.
IV.
MERGERS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE
NEWSPAPER BUSINESS
Members of this committee are well aware that in any assessment of the
structure of an industry, business mergers take on special significance. A
merger not only has the result of diminishing the population of independent
enterprisers by at least one, but it may also substantially enhance the size
of the acquiring firm. In general, therefore, merger has a double barrel
effect on the structural basis for competition. It is not only a means whereby
independent competitors are reduced in number, but historically it has also
been a means whereby acquiring firms attained disproportionate size with
respect to their smaller competitors often to the competitive disadvantage
of the latter.
The effect of mergers on industrial structure, however, cannot be judged
solely from the number and size of mergers. Assessment of the full impact of
merger on competition also requires some consideration of what would have
happened had the merger not occurred. In certain cases the option before the
acquired firm is not whether it shall merge or carry on, but whether it shall
merge or go out of business. It is even possible, indeed it has sometimes
happened, that two failing firms may find merger a means of survival. In such
cases mergers not only do not reduce the number of independent entities in an
industry but rather make possible the maintenance of a larger number than could
otherwise be maintained. Congress of course recognized these possibilities
when in enacting the Celler-Kefauver Amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act
it made that law inapplicable to cases where the acquired firm was in a finan-
cially failing condition.
There are several reasons why one would expect a rather large number of
mergers to occur in the newspaper business. More so than is the case in most
other industries, the assets and human skills used in newspaper publishing are
unique; that is, it is virtually impossible to think of an alternative use to
which such human resources, newspaper printing presses and all the other
specialized machinery that go with newspaper publishing could be put. Hence when
a newspaper publisher, for whatever reason, decides to stop publishing, his most
likely or only customer is the owner of another newspaper. The turnover of firms
in the newspaper business would also suggest the frequent occurrence of mergers.
Between 1930 and 1961, 801 new daily newspapers entered the business while 720
left through suspension or merger. An additional 263 left the daily newspaper
business by switching to weekly.
A good deal has been said in recent years, much of it in the press itself,
about newspaper mergers. Actually, several factors affect the number of news-
papers in existence at any one time (Table VII); merger is only one of such
factors. Between 1930 and 1961 the number of daily newspapers declined by 179,
but all of the decline occurred in the depression years of the 1930's and during
World War II. Of the 983 newspapers that ceased to operate as dailies, 263
of them shifted to weeklies. The total number of dailies that actually left the
newspaper business, therefore, amounted to only 720, a number that was more than
offset by the 8(A new dailies that started up. Of these 720, suspensions
accounted for two thirds while mergers accounted for one third.
Looked at another way, the number of new dailies that started up amounted
to nearly 31 times the number lost to the business through merger. The number
of mergers was smaller than the number that shifted from daily to weekly and
amounted to only one half the number of suspensions.
In the course of this study the reasons reported in the press and trade
journals for newspaper suspensions, mergers, or switching to weekly were
catalogued for the ten-year period 1952-1961.
Of the 185 daily newspapers that switched to weekly, merged, or were sus-
pended in this period, the reason was reported in the press and trade Journals
surveyed in 74 instances. As would be expected, daily newspapers ceased being
daily newspapers for a variety of reasons most of which add up to financial
difficulty: costs rising relative to revenues, sustained losses, property
seized by the U. S. government for back taxes, inability to negotiate loans,
insufficient circulation and advertising revenues, substantial declines in cir-
culation, prolonged labor disputes, outright bankruptcy, death or ill health
of the publisher, merger to improve the quality of the combined newspaper, and
in one case, the publisher was arrested on embezzlement charges.
Of the 74 cases reported, the reason for suspension, merger, or switch to
weekly in 21 of them was explicitly identified as serious financial difficulties
* in most cases sustained losses over a period of years. In 47 additional cases
the reason given was either "ever-mounting costs", a sharp decline in advertis-
ing revenues, a combination of the two, prolonged labor difficulties, or a
substantial decline in circulation in the face of mounting costs and labor
troubles.
While it cannot be ascertained whether the newspapers in these instances
were sustaining losses, it appears fairly evident that they were in financial
trouble. It can be reasonably concluded, therefore, that in 68 of the 74 exits
from the daily newspaper business for which reasons could be found, the cause
was financial difficulty. In the six remaining cases the reasons given covered
a wide variety of circumstances, such as the death or ill health of the publish-
er, or serious legal problems. These data may not be conclusive but they estab-
lish a strong presumption that about every newspaper that has dropped from the
daily newspaper publishing list over the past ten years has done so for finan-
cial reasons. Many of them were suspended. It is highly probable that those
that merged or switched to weekly did so in order to avoid the same fate.
We turn now to the basic economic facts that seem to underlie the exits
from the daily newspaper business for financial reasons. While many large
metropolitan newspapers have enjoyed mounting circulation and satisfactory
profits over the past ten years, the newspaper business generally has been
unquestionably caught in a cost squeeze. In the fifteen-year period 1946-1960,
there have been only two years in which expenses rose less than revenues for
all newspapers combined (Chart Ia). In the remaining thirteen years, expenses
have gone up more rapidly than revenues. As a consequence, since 1946 news-
paper costs have risen 225 per cent while revenues have risen only 175 per
cent. This failure of revenues to keep up with mounting costs has been charac-
teristic of all newspaper size groups.
A factor contributing substantially to the rising costs of newspaper
publication is labor costs. The total output of newspapers in physical terms
is measured approximately by the consumption of newsprint, the total input of
labor by the number of employees. Between 1947 and 1961 newsprint consumption
rose 54 per cent (Chart II) and the number of employees by 45 per cent (Chart
III), or nearly as much. The physical output per employee has, therefore,
scarcely risen at all.
Over the same period, hourly scales for the five major craft unions more
than doubled (Table VIII), and this comparison does not take into account
substantial increases In fringe benefits. This very large increase In wage
rates has not been offset by rising productivity per employee, but has reflected
almost entirely in rising costs of newspaper publishing.
As a result there has been a gradual but persistent increase in the number
of newspapers reporting losses on their annual operations. On the basis of
statistics of income reported by the Internal Revenue Service, U. S. Treasury
Department, in 1946 508 newspapers filed returns showing no net income. By 1960
this number had mounted to 1,020. Since the Internal Revenue Service data make
no distinction between daily and weekly newspapers, it is Impossible to tell how
many of the firms reporting losses were daily newspapers.
Those who have given careful study to the newspaper business have set forth
a variety of reasons as to why in recent years daily newspapers have been
suspended, merged, or switched to weekly, but most of those reasons add up to
changes that work to the financial disadvantage of those newspapers that ulti-
mately succumb. For example, Raymond B. Nixon and Jean Ward reported some
of those reasons in the Winter 1961 issue of Journalism Quarterly as follows:
1) The decline in partisanship of the U. S. press. Few news-
papers are started or kept alive today for political reasons; the
modern political party or pressure group hires a public relations
director and makes use of all the available mass media.
2) The growth in objective reporting among American newspapers.
As newspapers have become more and more alike in their reporting of
the news, and presenting both sides of controversial Issues, there
has come to be little more reason for two competing newspapers than
there would be for two competing telephone companies.
3) The desire of advertisers for larger circulations and less
duplication of readership. Once a newspaper is set into type and the
plates pub on the press, the cost of production per copy goes down as
circulation goes up. Unless a city is large enough to support papers
that appeal to distinctly different types of readers (as, for example,
the New York Times and the New York Daily News), advertisers obvious-
ly prefer a single "imaibus" daily to eempeting papers.
4) The growth of the suburbs. For example, while the number
of competing dailies in New York City proper has declined, the rise
of successful new dailies in suburbs like Long Island has been
phenomenal. A suburban dweller seems to prefer one downtown paper
and one suburban paper to two or more papers from downtown. and for
understandable reasons.
5) The growing competition from the electronic media. As one
studies the trends of the last 30 years, this appears to be the
single most important factor in the disappearance of locally competing
daily newspapers. Certainly it is the circumstance that offers the
most plausible explanation for the lack of any real agitation for more
newspapers in most cities where there is now a single ownership. It
also helps to explain why a previous study found no significant dif-
ferences in the news and editorial content of non-competitive and
competitive newspapers in cities of less than 400,000 population.
V.
CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPETI-
TION IN T1H DAILY NEWlPAPER BUSINESS
The newspaper business comprises a complicated admixture of two highly
dissimilar but related markets, the news-disseminating and the advertising
markets. Effective competition in the.news-disseminating market, under stand-
ards long established by public policy, requires a wide diversity of news
reaching the reading and viewing public through widely diverse media. On the
other hand, workable competition in the advertising market varies with the num-
ber of reasonably homogeneous substitutes available to national, regional and
local advertisers. These are different standards. But the desirability of
diversity in one requires acceptance of something less than an obvious
state of workable competition as measured by conventional standards in the other.
The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the news dissemination
market, by the standards public policy has laid down, is effectively competi-
tive. In most of the 30 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas included in
this study the public has available far more news sources than the constraining
force of time permits it to use. Typically, residents of these areas have
access to, and regularly use, several daily papers, weekly papers, numerous
specialized magazines and other publications, about a dozen radio stations and
several TV stations. In addition, a large number of daily and weekly newspapers,
19 selected national magazines, and numerous other miscellaneous news sources
reach these areas from outside on a regular basis. The number and variety of
news sources readily available to residents of the 50 more rural counties
studied are more limited. Most of the counties contain only a single daily
newspaper. However, when other media are included, and when appropriate
allowance is made for news sources reaching these sparsely populated areas from
the outside, the total number of news sources available can be considered low
in relatively few counties.
Similarly, the evidence supports the conclusion that these same media
form a structural base for effective competition in most types of advertising
markets. In the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas numerous newspapers,
radio and TV stations, magazines, direct mail organizations, and other media
vigorously compete for most national and local advertising. The one possible
exception is classified advertising, where in single newspaper core cities the
alternatives to newspapers are limited in number. In the 50 counties studied
the range and number of alternatives open to advertisers is much more limited.
However, most local and national advertisers have the option of using at least
one daily and one weekly newspaper, a TV station, several radio stations and
specialized publications, and the facilities of direct-mail lettershops.
These conclusions are not materially affected when the data are adjusted
to allow for the joint-ownership of media. In recent years joint-ownership
between newspapers and radio stations has declined both absolutely and
relatively, and between newspapers and TV stations it has increased absolutely
but declined relatively because of the phenomenal growth in station numbers.
Nor does it appear that mergers, at least in recent years, have led to a
reduction in the number of daily newspapers Since 1945 the number of dailies
has stayed approximately the same with the number of births offsetting the total
exits through suspension, merger, and switching to weekly. A total of 369
daily newspapers have left the business, 175 by suspension, 117 by switching to
weekly, and 77 by merger. Of the three reasons, merger has been the least
important. The immediate or proximate cause of most exits, however made, appears
to have been financial difficulties.
In conclusion, the power a single newspaper has over either the minds of
men or business firms seeking access to customers through advertising appears
generally to be neither dangerous nor unchecked. This conclusion follows from
an application of the economist's standards of workable competition as modified
by the particular features of the information-disseminating business.
In short, there does not appear to be a "monopoly" press by the economists'
generally accepted and conventional definition of that term as the power to
control the market, or even when defined as possession of substantial market
power. When used in some other sense, it becomes a term of art, and its
interpretation in this sense lies outside the field of economics.
PART TWO CONTINUED
TABLES AND CHARTS TO ACCOMPANY STATEMENT OF
JESSE W. MARKHAM
TABLE I
MEDIA ENGAGED IN NATIONAL, LOCAL, AND
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
National
Daily Newspapers
Weekly Newspapers
National Sunday Supplements
National Magazines
Specialized Publications
Network Radio
Radio National Spot
Network Television
Television National Spot
*Direct Mail
*Outdoor
*Calendars, Match Covers,
and other
Local
Daily Newspapers
Weekly Newspapers
Local Sunday Supplements
Specialized Publications
Local Radio
Radio Local Spot
Local Television
Television Local Spot
*Direct Mail (including
Handbills)
*Outdoor
*Calendars, Match Covers,
and other
Classified
Daily Newspapers
Weekly Newspapers
Local Radio
--
*Telephone and
other Directories
* Not in the news-disseminating market
TABLE II
STRUCTURAL TRENDS IN MEDIA OWNERSHIP, SELECTED YEARS,
1945 1959
Independent and Joint Ownership
of Daily NewsDpaers
No. Group
Owned
Newspapers
No. Ind.
Owned
Newspapers
Cities With
Daily
Newspapers
Standard Broadcast, FM & TV Stations With
NewsDamer Affiliations
Standard
On Affil-
Air iated 4%
FM
On Affil-
Air iated 4%
TV
On Affil-
Air iated d
1945 76 368 1,381 1,396 943 260 27.6 53 17 32.0 9 1 11.1
1953 95 485 1,300 1,448 2,375 478 20.1 626 199 31.8 126 87 78.9
1959 109(1) 552(1) 1,211(1) 1,461 3,388 431 12.7 628 143 22.8 521 181 34.7
(1) 1960
SOURCES: Harvey J. Levin, Broadcast Regulations and Joint Ownership of Media
New York University Press, 1960) p. 53; Journalism Quarterly, Winter
(New York:
1961; and ANPA.
Year
No.
Groups
Table III
Population
over 1,000,000
THE SMSA STUDY
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: New York, New York
Northeast
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- stations Statio Sunday Direct- Selected ised
papers papers Papers St S ions pp Le or National Publca-
iants Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
cty Applicable
13 7 49 6 28 471 6 12 975
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
12 1 118 26 97 13 1 68
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
101 62 ___________7 6_____ ____
TOTAL 126 70 167 6 54 7 568 19 19 1,043
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
568
1,043
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Albary-Schenectady-Troy, New York
Population
500.000 -
1.000.000
Northeast
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- T Rad Sunday mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
sents Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 3 2 4 13 1 -- 11
Rest of Not
SMSA
Applicable
5 - 5 1 9 9 16 -- 7
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
22 12 7 19
TOTAL 29 13 8 3 13 7 22 17 19 18
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
In core
city
Rest of
SMSA
Coming into
SMSA from
outside
ing for joint-
ownerships
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Wilkes Barre-Hazelton. Pennsylvania
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: .Thngt-r.n m Panngyylvanja
000i tV'V\
Northeast
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special
News- News- News- tioV Rad Sunday Mail Direct- elected izeda-
papers papers Papers Statio Stations Supple- Letto ris ation Pio
In core Not
city Applicable
1 1 2 5 1 1 -- 2
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
1 -- 11 -- 4I. -- 11 -- 1 _____
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
15 10 7 19
TOTAL 17 10 12 2 9 7 1 12 19 3
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100,000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Manchester. New Hampshire
Northeast
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Drect Telephone 19 Speciale
News- News- News- T Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city Applicable
1 1 -- 1 4 13 2 8
Rest of Not
SMA Applicable
-- -- 1 -- -- 1 --
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
15 8 19
TOTAL 16 9 1 1 4 7 14 2 19 8
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000
Number of
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Chicago. Illinois
North Central
1~ Y
Daily
News-
papers
Sunday
News-
papers
Weekly
News-
Papers
TV
Stations
adtio
Stations
National
Sunday
Supple-
ments
Direct
Nail
Letter
Shops
Telephone
Direct-
ories
19
Selected
National
Magazines
Special-
ized
Publica-
tions
In core Not
city !Applicable
5 3 46 4 28 264 3 -- 508
Rest of Not
SSA applicable
6 2 134 25 69 56 -- 91
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
80 45 7 19
TOTAL 91 50 180 4 53 7 333 59 19 599
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
18o
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Indianapolis, Indiana
Population
500. 000 -
0,3 00 000
North Central
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- Sta ions SRatios Su M nal izca-ed
papers papers Papers Stations Stations P Ltt ories Magazines ions
In core Not
city Applicable
3 2 1 3 10 41 2 -- 61
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
-- -- 1 1
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
34 20 7 19
TOTAL 37 22 2 4 10 7 41 2 19 61
Net total
after account.
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
250,000 500,000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Omaha, Nebraska-Iowa
North Central
Number of Daiy Sunday Weeky National Direct T telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV RaSunday Mail Direct Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ries National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 -- 3 10 23 1 24
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
1 1 14 - 1 3 4 -- 1
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
25 15 7 19
TOTAL 28 17 14 3 11 7 26 5 19 25
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
100.000 250.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Ft. Wayne, Indiana
North central
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV ai Sunday a Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Pnblica-
anets Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 1 3 5 16 1 -- 3
Rest of Not
SMSA
Applicable
-- -- 2 -- -- -- 3 -- --
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
14 13 7 19
TOTAL 16 14 3 3 5 7 16 4 19 3
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100 000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: sioux Falls, South Dakota
North Central
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- T7 Sadio nday ail Direct Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Suppl- Letter ories National Publica-
rents Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
1 1 -- 2 4 5 1 6
Rest of Not
Applicable
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
12 10 6 19
TOTAL 13 11 4 2 4 6 5 1 19 6
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Washington.
D. C.. -Marv1and-Vtr~trdft
South
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- NNews- ews- T Radio Sunday ail Direct Selected ized
papers apers Papers Stations Stations Supp.- Letter ories National Publica-
ments Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
3 2 -- 4 14 150 1 - 286
Rest of Not
SA Applicable
2 12 17 28 2 - 15
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
__69 41 7 19
TOTAL 74 43 12 4 31 7 178 3 19 301
Net total
after account-
ing for joint
ownerships
178
T). -avadVrii
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Miami, Florida
Population
;on .m 1
nooo -0no
South
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TVSunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations supple- Letter ories National Publica-
me nts Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 2 3 11 35 1 17
Rest of Not
Applicable
1 1 6 8 1 1 2
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
36 24 -6 19
TOTAL 39 27 6 3 19 6 36 2 19 19
Net total
after account.
ing for joint
ownerships
3
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
p50.00 o00.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Tulsa, Oklahoma
South
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations supple- Letter ories National Publica-
entspapers papers Pape Mag ines ti
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 2 3 9 25 1 16
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
2 2 15 -- -- -- 10 -- 1
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
16 12 7 19
TOTAL 20 15 17 3 9 7 25 11 19 17
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
17
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
100.000 p50.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
South
Number of Dai3y Sunday Weekly National Telephone 19 al-
New- News- News- tTo Rad Sunday Mail Trel Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Sup ories National Pblican-
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 -2 7 9 1 -- 8
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
---- 2 -- -- -- 1 -- --
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
0 10 10 7 19 _
TOTAL 12 11 2 2 7 7 9 2 19 8
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100,000
In core
city
Rest of
SMSA
Coming into
SMSA from
outside
after account.
ing for joint
ownerships
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Lawton, Oklahoma
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1.000.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Los Angeles-Long Beach, California
West
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- Sunday al Diret- Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations SPtb s io s lica-
entSe Shop s Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
3 2 36 7 28 215 1 189
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
28 7 114 32 197 29 88
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
1 30_ 7 19_
TOTAL 72 39 150 7 60 7 412 30 19 277
Net total
alter account.
ing for joint
ownerships
150
277
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Portland.
Or~gnn-Wa~h1n0tnn
Population
500,000 -
1 000,000
West
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direc- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ies National Pablica-
ments Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city Applicable
3 1 2 3 16 44 2 46
Rest of Not
SusA 0
Applicable
2 4- 1 6 I4 6 -- 5
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
24 14 7 19
TOTAL 29 15 16 4 22 7 48 8 19 51
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
Oreann-Wa ...h ng_..
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
250.000 500.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Salt Lake
City, Utah
West
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Radio Sunday Mail Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
Monts Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 2 3 12 18 1 20
Rest of Not
SMSA Applicable
-- 5 -- 1 ---
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
10 9 6 _19
TOTAL 12 10 7' 3 13 6 18 1 19 20
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
In core
city
Rest of
SMSA
Coming into
SMSA from
outside
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Santa Barbara, California
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
under 100.000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Billings, Montana
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Snday ai Direct Selected ied
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter aDirs National Publica-
aents Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
2 1 1 2 7 5 1 -- 5
Rest of Not
SASA
Applicable
-- -- 1 -- -- -- 1
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
8 8 5 19
TOTAL 10 9 2 2 7 5 5 2 19 5
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
10.
2
Wet+
THE SMSA STUDY
Table III (Continued)
Population
over 1,000,000
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area: Boston, Massachusetts
Northeast
Number of Daily Sunday Weekly National Direct Telephone 19 Special-
News- News- News- TV Ra Sunday il Direct- Selected ized
papers papers Papers Stations Stations Supple- Letter ories National Publica-
rants Shops Magazines tions
In core Not
city
Applicable
6 3 15 3 16 74 2 -- 117
Rest of Not
ShsA Applicable
11 -- 60 -- 14 49 19 43
Coming into Not Not Not Not Not Not
SMSA from
outside Available Available Available Applicable Applicable Available
31 16 7 19
TOTAL 48 19 75 3 30 7 123 21 19 160
Net total
alter account-
ing for joint
ownerships
123
|
