We have bigger foreign and business sections we’ve brought the leaders
“We have bigger foreign and business sections, we’ve brought the leaders, comment and op-ed forward in the book,” he says. “Because passion is not one-dimensional, but format is one-dimensional.” Other readers felt betrayed, since the paper proclaimed it had “no plans” to go fully compact less than a month before it did precisely that “At that time there were no plans,” says Thomson. “It wasn’t the art of deceit.” He admits, though, to having been “personally very, very keen, if it was the right thing to do, to go totally compact as quickly as possible”.He rejects the criticisms – common when the two editions ran side by side – that the compact is a frothier, less substantial version of the now defunct broadsheet Times. “It was as much that you had moved things from a place that was very familiar to them as the actual change in format,” he says. But those are not readers you’re likely to lose,” he says, “because if someone’s so passionate about your newspaper that they write you a personal letter, even if very occasionally it’s an insulting letter, it’s because they care about The Times. And if, in turn, you show that you care – I wrote back to a lot of readers – you establish a dialogue with them to explain what you’re doing.”Thomson understands that the changes, not just of format but also of the furniture, upset readers.
How many letters of complaint did he receive? “They were in the hundreds, depending on the day, and e-mails too. But this wasn’t some decision from on high.”The removal of the broadsheet edition provoked a furious response from large numbers of Times readers, many of whom were already angry that the compact had been delivered to their homes when they had specifically ordered the traditional format. In the north, it was about 24, 25 per cent increase in sales; in the Republic it was 48 per cent. That convinced me it was the right thing to do.” So was it Murdoch’s decision? “No, no, we had done the research.” Was his appearance in London just a coincidence, then, or was he there specifically to discuss the dropping of the broadsheet? “Well, it was not the only conversation that would go on between the commercial side and the proprietor, or myself and the proprietor, about how to develop The Times. There were various figures reported – £12m and so on – which were way off.”"After two weeks, it was just very, very obvious that we were getting phenomenal returns on the compact.
Not so, says Thomson.”The timing was determined by some experiments we did in Scotland, the West Country, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where we went compact early to see what the reaction was. Prior to that, we were wondering how long we would run the two editions in parallel. But there was no cut-off date, and there was no reason at that time to cut it off.” The Times’ losses have long been cushioned by the huge profits of its sister publication, The Sunday Times, but wasn’t the cost a factor? “The expense was a lot less than was generally reported.” How much was it? “People imagined that setting up costs and the opening marketing campaign was the only running cost But the running cost was about a fifth of the actual figure. Envy generally doesn’t bring enlightenment, and almost all of those comments are envy-driven.
