Yes. But many editors will argue that you can’t. I will demonstrate that you can. Here is an analysis based on 20 newspapers (of different kinds) in seven European countries.
Here are three interesting facts.
Firstly: There is a very strong correlation between advertising revenue and staff numbers. The graph below shows the relationship between a newspaper’s advertising revenues and the editorial staffing numbers. You will see how close the markers are to the line.
Secondly: There is a reasonably strong relationship between circulation and editorial staffing. OK so the points are not so close, but there is still a demonstrable relationship.
In the circulation chart, the difference is most striking among the larger titles. B&K are both national titles, with weak classified. P&R are more like large regional titles with a strong classified. Does this justify the extra editorial resources? And what happens when that classified migrates off to a branded digital vertical?
By combining the two factors, it is possible to measure how close staffing levels are to the “optimum” as demonstrated in the chart below:
In the circulation chart, the difference is most striking among the larger titles. B&K are both national titles, with weak classified. P&R are more like large regional titles with a strong classified. Does this justify the extra editorial resources? And what happens when that classified migrates off to a branded digital vertical.
By combining the two factors, it is possible to measure how close staffing levels are to the “optimum” as demonstrated in the chart below:
Here the blue circles show actual staffing levels, and the red circles what the model predicts they should be. Note how those titles above the line show blue, actual levels larger, while those below the line show blue, actual levels smaller. In other words this shows that relative to circulation volumes and advertising revenues, editorial staff numbers can be justified and accounted for against peers. And the differences, to an extent, can be explained by differences in genre, but that’s no excuse.
Now to the third factor. There is absolutely no correlation between editorial pages produced, and staff numbers required. This confirms the argument that quality and quantity are different things… But…. While one can accept that a newspaper like the FT or FAZ, might justify a higher level of staffing given research, etc, the truth is that a study I undertook a few years ago showed, advertising revenues grow exponentially as a newspaper moves up-market, but editorial costs rise exponentially faster which is why many quality newspapers struggle to be profitable. They produce too much content, for rich people who have less time to read.
So let’s accept that staffing numbers are quantifiable. Creativity is the most vital element of our industry. But let’s get facts involved in solving arguments.
Footnote: Some of the titles did not provide data on both advertising and circulation and therefore are not included in all the charts.
