Traditionally ownership was formed either via sole ownership, maybe working from a family business, or even a partnership (Lee 1978). This ownership was almost always based upon an existing printing business (Lee 1978). The size of many newspapers during the early nineteenth century was minimal even in London, compared to the massive growth, which was about to occur later that century. It would have taken about £25,000 to develop a London daily newspaper in 1870, while it would have taken about £100,000 by 1870 (Lee 1978). For example, by the end of the century the Harmsworths spent about half a million over the first few years on the Daily Mail, destroying many newcomers possible chances in the market, and deterring many others from entering (Lee 1978). Franklin Thomasson was one of the losers as he lost about £300,000 pounds on his newspaper, The Tribune over two years (Lee 1978). The provincial papers, understandably needing a lesser outlay to gain market control, also noticed a change due to the scale of operations. For example, The Glasgow Herald spent over £50,000 in twenty years, on new operations which included plants and premises which were financed out of their growing profits (Lee 1978). This increased spending, showed an rise in competition fuelled by larger profit margins, forcing newspapers to either improve their newsprint or distribution, which in turn would have been beneficial to the public.
One major development which went some way in changing the way in which newspapers were structured, was the formation of the Companies Act which made it much easier to create joint-stock companies (Lee 1978). This led to the introduction of four thousand new newspaper companies in England and Wales, over the next fifty years (Lee 1978). In the 1870’s this massive increase hit its peak, as speculators realised the potential of such investments. As with many forms of market growth, much of these companies ceased trading after a very short time, although more importantly a precedent was set for corporate companies to be formed. By the end of this century, family businesses that even had a strong market position, tended to form corporations in order to safeguard their future (Lee 1978). Capital was now readily available to the press and set the scene for newspaper companies to concentrate or increasing market position and developing the press system even further.
Most newspaper companies were effectively ‘private limited companies’, because shares were not sold by newspaper companies until Harmsworth in the 1890’s (Lee 1978). Companies were managed mainly by one source of power, mainly the owner, and not by different employees managing different sectors of the business, which is currently seen today. Although interest by different groups of people led to the introduction in the 1860’s of the ‘First International’s Industrial Newspaper Company’ and also the trade unionist ‘Trades Newspaper Company’ (Lee 1978). The industry was now big business and had to be overseen so that growth could be constant and not destroyed. Many proprietors wanted to keep their operations a secret to safeguard their future in a highly competitive industry.
‘Of the 30 presidents of the society between 1854-5 and 1884-5, only six were proprietors of dailies at the time of holding office, and five of these were proprietors of dailies at the time of holding office, and five of these were after 1876-7, the exception being an Irishman in 1862-3. The daily proprietors continued their membership but, when faced with a crisis like the monopoly activities of the telegraph companies in the 1860’s, they formed another association - the Press Association – to deal with it. (Lee 1978).’
With the press growing an increased status, it would have been an obvious occurrence for proprietors to attempt monopolisation. This was not really the case in the nineteenth century, although people like William Saunders attempted to do so, with his ownership of the Northern Daily Express, Western Morning News, Eastern Morning News, Central News Agency and for a short period the Caledonian Mercury (LEE 1978). One of the most famous attempts at this was a syndicate called Storey-Carnegie in the early 1980’s (LEE 1978). A chain of evening papers was formed based around the London Echo, in a ‘radical cause’ (LEE 1978). It was not successful and other chains were formed around the less expensive weekly field. Increased control by media magnates did not arrive properly until the twentieth century where it is estimated that, ‘over a third of the morning circulation was controlled by three companies (Northcliffe, Cadbury and Pearson); that four fifths of the evening circulation was controlled by the same three companies (LEE, 1978).’ After wholesale changes during the nineteenth century the market would need time to settle down and the eventuality would see the strongest companies come overall on top.
The general management patterns of the late nineteenth century were more tactical. Newspapers were aimed at a particular readership, which was suited to the newspaper style. At the time the cheaper papers, which seemed more vulnerable by other commercial pressures was seen as the paper of the lower classes (Lee 1978). The halfpenny papers were generally read by the lower middle and working class, and the penny dailies read by the middle classes (Lee 1978). The Sunday papers, which went against traditional beliefs of not selling newspapers on the Sabbath, were mainly of working class audiences (Lee 1978). Price cuts were also used to increase the individual newspaper readership, and also to reduce competition, by making other lesser company’s position, increasingly untenable. The penny dailies described as the organ of educated democracy, ‘was a phenomenon of urban and industrial England, of the North and the Midlands, of similar areas in Scotland and Wales, and of the administrative and commercial centres of Ireland (LEE, 1978).’ Cheaper papers threatened its existence even though at peak it could have a provincial circulation of 40,000 or 50,000. Halfpenny evening papers were the main competitors, because they were created to increase market share for newspaper companies. These changes in pricing and consumer targeting, meant that the public would be able to buy a newspaper which was suited to their thoughts and views, creating a positive atmosphere for papers to be bought by different kinds of people.
CONCLUSION
New patterns of ownership and control cannot be considered as the significant contribution to the growing status of the press by the end of the nineteenth century. These changes did allow the press to become more available to its public because of the increased distribution. The public then became more satisfied by this, especially with the accompaniment of a wider variation of newspaper content and price. The change of ownership and control also meant that newspapers could benefit from economies of scale, increased profit and a strong authority within Britain’s marketplace. This status was achieved because more newspapers were being sold, meaning that newspapers could become profitable as individual companies and hold an important position in Britain’s economy.
These changes in ownership and control occurred because of a mixture of factors, which helped to shape the press into its late nineteenth century form. Technology improved meaning that management had to be changed to make way for greater distribution and print processes. A closer version of a ‘free press’ was created with the abolishment of the newspaper laws, directly influenced by a changing society. People who were supposedly becoming better educated wanted to view different news, than the political content that they previously had been used to. As newspapers became widely read, the status of the newspaper increased tenfold making society as a whole more thoughtful to its power and influence. Overall it was the economic, social and technical developments in this period which led to the growing status of the press, which changed its own character and the need for modern ownership and management
WORD COUNT:1834
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyce, Curran, Lee and Wingate, eds. (1978). Newspaper History from the Seventeenth-Century to the Present Day
