The arrival of a new set of newspaper circulation figures reminds us of the need to convince all the publishers of national titles that they must agree to the monthly auditing of their websites. Unless they do so, the picture they present to the world - to advertisers, readers, politicians, everyone - is of an industry in terminal decline.
Yet the opposite is true. The nationals' online journalism is being read by a wider audience, within Britain and outside, than the newsprint issues ever achieved. We are selling ourselves short.
Some publishers have agreed to monthly monitoring and to the public release of the results. Some want the figures kept private. Some have agreed to irregular auditing. Some have refused to be audited at all. I don't think it would be productive just now to name the culprits. I understand that it's a delicate matter and requires a great deal of behind-the-scenes negotiation (though I'd be the first to point out that if a similar situation was occurring in any other industry, the papers would delight in exposing the laggards).
Until newspapers can show that their declining newsprint sales are complemented by rising online readership the monthly story will remain depressing, as the ABC figures for May show once again. All the daily and Sunday papers recorded year-on-year circulation falls with the singular exception of the Financial Times, which managed to add 1,600 copies in the course of 12 months, and Stephen Brook puts this rise in context.
The overall yearly market fall for the dailies is running at almost 4% and, for the Sundays, it's more than 4%. Some titles are using bulks to boost their headline figures. The Daily Telegraph, for example, increased its bulk sale by 22,000 copies in a year while the Sunday Telegraph's was up 21,000 and The Times's grew by 11,000. Others are compensating for falling sales within Britain by putting on extra sales abroad. The Independent, for example, sold 47,000 "foreigns" in May - up 9,000 on May last year - while the Mail on Sunday added an extra 12,000. Both The Sun and the Independent on Sunday also sold 8,000 more abroad.
All of these are relatively small additions of course, but marginal extras have assumed a disproportionate importance when real sales - meaning full-rate domestic sales - are falling away without almost any paper being able to stop the rot.
One eye-opening figure was the Independent on Sunday's 14.46% month-on-month drop to a sale of 209,418. In fact, its full-rate domestic sale totalled just 132,046. In addition, its year-on-year decrease was 7.88%. These figures certainly help to explain why its bosses decided on that dramatic revamp.
There are signs that the hostile reaction to the Sunday Times's cover price rise to £2 may have tailed off. It was down less than 1% on the month and, despite its plunge, has not resorted to extra bulks or foreigns to boost its headline figure.
As has been the case for several years, it is the popular papers - plus the Express titles - that are suffering worst of all. But The Sun shows signs of some stability, managing to keep its head above 3m while the Daily Mirror editor will be pleased with his paper's performance too. It sold almost 5% fewer copies than a year ago but its May figure reversed what looked like a worrying slump.
Then again, the Mirror might have a better tale to tell if we had a clearer idea - adjudged by ABCe - of its online strength. And the same goes for every titles. Just how well is telegraph.co.uk doing against Guardian Unlimited and Times online? Those figures set next to newsprint sales figures would be an invaluable guide. Come on publishers, it's time to join the 21st century.
