rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

NADBank comparisons show significant readership declines at Edmonton's largest dailies

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

All across Canada yesterday afternoon, journalists were filing cheerful little stories about the latest results from the Newspaper Audience Databank and how they provide heartening news for the local rag and, indeed, the entire newspaper industry.

After NADBank yesterday privately released its 2009-2010 readership results to the newspapers in the communities surveyed, the resulting story in the Edmonton Journal was headlined "Readership numbers good news for The Journal."

"The number of people reading the Edmonton Journal has grown significantly since a spring industry audience study, led by the growing reach of The Journal's digital product -- edmontonjournal.com," the story accurately began. The rival Edmonton Sun did not have a story in its Website yesterday evening, but readers can expect something similar to appear soon.

NADBank describes itself as the "principal research arm of the Canadian daily newspaper industry" and its surveys are taken very seriously within the newspaper business as they provide the metric used to justify the advertising rates charged by the major metropolitan papers that are surveyed.

Surveys are conducted in the spring and fall and newspapers, typically, put on a major push during NADBank week to boost their circulation. The survey also measures readership among various ages and education levels.

Yesterday's Journal story, which is typical of the genre, described at length the genuinely impressive readership gains that Edmonton’s principal daily newspaper has made on its website. But the newspaper was much more circumspect describing the readership of its actual print newspaper -- surely still the core of its business -- saying only "on the print side, The Journal has shown remarkable stability in its core readership since 2005 through boom, bust, and recovery."

In fact, the news is not nearly as good as the first stories about NADBank's results suggested. A closer look at NADBank's statistics, which will be available on the group's website soon, reveals a darker picture.

For example, the Journal accurately reported: "New weekday readership grew to 276,300, up from 275,500 in the spring survey."

But the Journal did not compare the 2009-2010 results of NADBank's "Read Yesterday" category with the 2008-2009 results, the directly comparable period.

This comparison shows the Journal's current readership of 276,300 was down from 286,200 readers in the same period in 2008-2009, for a net loss of 9,900 readers or minus 3 per cent from the year-earlier period.

Because of its smaller readership, the figures were worse at the Edmonton Sun, 171,300 in 2009-2010 compared with 179,600 in 2008-2009, for a loss of 8,300 readers or minus 5 per cent.

According to NADBank, the Sun's free 24 publication saw readership drop from 34,100 to 30,600 in the same period, a loss of 3,500 readers or 10 per cent. Between them, then, the three papers lost 21,700 readers according to NADBank's estimate between the 2008-2009 surveys and the 2009-2010 surveys.

The only Edmonton daily paper to show significant gains according to this measure was Metro Edmonton, which saw readership rise by 17,500 or 34 per cent to 68,800 from 51,300.

In the five-day cumulative period, the results followed a similar pattern, with the Journal’s net reach down 22,800 readers to 453,300 readers from 476,100 or minus 5 per cent.

According to this measure, the Edmonton Sun's net reach was down 12,200 readers to 324,200 from 336,400 or minus 4 per cent.

24's readership rose a little according to this measure, 1,700 readers to 111,900 from 110,200 or plus 2 per cent.

Metro's Edmonton readership rose 24 per cent in the five-day cumulative category to 170,900 from 137,400, a total of 33,500 new readers.

Other dramatic figures in the latest NADBank survey included a 32-per-cent drop in daily readership at the National Post between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, resulting in a loss of 66,800 readers to 139,800 as estimated by NADBank.

That compared with a 13-per cent drop of 52,900 readers to 354,300 at the Globe and Mail and a 1 per cent drop of 10,900 readers to 963,100 at the Toronto Star. Readership at the Toronto Sun rose 9 per cent by 35,600 readers to 444,900.

While NADBank's practice of adding together on-line readership and print readership to come up with total numbers used to justify print advertising rates does not seem like a legitimate comparison, that is a topic for another day.

This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, Alberta Diary.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.