Mansfield: Blamed for problems with editors at NatMags

Next month it will be two and half years since the cover price of The Times was first cut. In that time, Times Newspapers has first cut prices and then increased them, getting down to a low of 20p for The Times between June 1994 and June 1995.

While much was written about The Times’ circulation during the price war, what has been less commented on is the fact that it has continued to grow since the price started to go back up. Since June last year when the price first went up to 25p, the circulation of The Times has grown by 3.5 per cent.

And the phenomenon does not seem to have finished. The sales figure for January stands at 687,992 – it highest monthly result to date. Now seems to be an appropriate time to stand back and learn from events.

In 1993, Rupert Murdoch was condemned for cutting cover prices and launching the industry into a war which only he could afford to persevere with. Some argued that consumers were loyal to brands , that there would be very little trial, or that quality sector readers would never be swayed by something as tacky as a low price.

They have been proved wrong. Not only has there been large-scale trial but consumers seem to stay with The Times even after the price rises. Quality readers are fickle indeed.

The Independent and the Daily Express have been the main losers. The Daily Telegraph retaliated with its own price cuts and promotions. The Guardian was the only paper to shrink from entering the fray. It concentrated on building upon its unique editorial personality and unusually loyal readership.

Yet if The Times’ new readers are price fickle, why have they not swapped back again as the price has risen?

There are two possible reasons. The Times product itself is good. The broadsheet sections are clear and concise; the weekend package is good value with a wide ranging appeal; and new sections like Wednesday’s Interface have been very well received by readers.

Secondly the Times has been careful to maintain a cover price gap. The price has risen gradually, always maintaining a substantial distance between itself and its quality competitors. Currently The Times is 10p less than the next cheapest broadsheet and 5p cheaper than the middle market.

The crucial question is, what The Times’ circulation would do if its price were to return to parity with its competitors. Would readers defect and sample other titles? Or is the Times product really good enough to hold their loyalty.