Wall Street Journal Europe Doles Out Cash And Favors To Inflate Circulation Numbers

from the ouch dept

Fri, Oct 14th 2011 2:11pm — Mike Masnick

I can't find it now, but just a few months ago I got into a discussion in our comments with someone who insisted that newspapers or paywalls were always going to be a better place for advertisers because they actually knew who their readers were and could verify and audit that information. I noted that the newspaper industry has a long history of boosting circulation numbers through fraud. In response, I was told that doesn't happen any more. That seemed laughable. Indeed, reports have now come out that the Wall Street Journal Europe was involved in a complicated scam to massively boost its circulation numbers by giving companies cash to buy copies of the paper at greatly discounted rates. Even worse, it appears that some of the deals involved signed contracts with the WSJ, where they promised positive coverage of one of the organizations that would participate in this scheme:

The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channeling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal's true circulation.

The bizarre scheme included a formal, written contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper's management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.

Coming on the heels of the voicemail hacking scandal, this is another black eye for Murdoch's News Corp, but it looks significantly worse, given the generally positive reputation around the Wall Street Journal, when it comes to reporting and editorial ethics.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: circulation, scams, wall street journal europe
Companies: news corp.

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:16pm

reporting and editorial ethics
re-por-ting? eth... ethi... ethics? I do not recognize those terms. Are they new?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:28pm

Typo
"Murdoch's New Corp" - unless this is some kind of a pun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 2:36pm

They certainly do this to universities, and not just in Europe. Mine got a "free" WSJ subscription through a complicated arrangement with a donor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
blaktron (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 3:40pm

"a move which led some staff to accuse the paper's management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality."

...

...

Who wrote this? Can I presume they never actually read the WSJ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:02pm

Can't trust anyone in advertising -- especially not Google.
Self-interest trumps all. No way to independently audit, therefore inflated numbers are a certainty. -- And uncovering one bunch of liars doesn't make anyone else credible, just confirms the whole field as crooked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Oct 2011 @ 5:49pm

Re: Can't trust anyone in advertising -- especially not Google.
And since those crooked folks are human, that means all humans are crooked liars and everything they say is wrong, which mea s you're co. Net was wrong too and google and the WSJ are trustworthy as Vishnu....

See now silly generalizations are yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2011 @ 8:30pm

Reputation
The Wall Street Journal has a reputation? Their reputation for lying and concealment of the truth about financial scams, is that the reputation you mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2011 @ 12:45am

The Guardian interested in investigative reporting while a Murdoch rag is caught lying and cheating to make money?

Sky is blue, water is wet, etc...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 16 Oct 2011 @ 12:37pm

Re: Typo
When murdoch finally kicks the bucket will the headline be "News Corpse International" hehe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas, 17 Oct 2011 @ 11:54am

That has to be a clear line of non-ethical behavior. Let's face some of the facts though, circulation numbers are down and some people are questioning the survival of print newspaper as we know it. The internet is making it much more feasible to find information in real time leaving print newspapers somewhat obselete, youth group activities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shine (profile), 5 Mar 2012 @ 8:04am

I think anything printed will really have harder times getting their audience these days because of the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]