Man, this apologizing thing is getting to be a drag.

But — for the second time in five days — here goes:

This morning, in a piece on the Pioneer Press' circulation, I likened their perennially incremental growth to Bernie Madoff's investment returns. Every six months, the Pioneer Press reports microscopic gains — 187 here, 573 there. I meant to tease about the modest consistency, especially in tough times. In doing so, I put the onus of fraud squarely on people who didn't deserve it. For that, I apologize to the entire Pioneer Press staff, and called publisher Guy Gilmore to deliver the same message.

In the months I've been on this beat, I've tried to report a deeper explanation for circulation figures, which are complex. For example, papers can discount or give away copies to keep their top-line numbers looking good — several papers have acknowledged ending programs such as third-party giveaways.

Businesses are not always anxious to give details. But one silver lining of my mistake is that Gilmore jumped on a soap box — not just to rip yours truly (with a little extra "gets no respect" any high school coach would be proud of) — but to state definitively that circ growth has cost neither revenue nor profit. (In fact, just the opposite.)

I have a few more questions about electronic-edition subscriptions, which is where I left this afternoon's discussion with circulation v.p. Andrew Mok. But so you can get Gilmore's unvarnished take, here's a memo he sent to his staff Monday afternoon:

What follows are some thoughts related to a MinnPost blog that ran today. I generally refrain from notes like this. But in this case, due to some of the suggestions in the blog, I think you deserve to know that what you all have accomplished — years of consecutive circulation gains against all odds — is real and significant. What follows is not about the competition. And nothing that follows should be interpreted as a boast. The absence of hubris around this building is an essential element in our ability, thus far, to hold our ground. 

Again, I am sorry to have to write this, but I believe you deserve a response. You all have done well and deserve to be told so in no uncertain terms.

****

Let’s pause for just a moment to recognize another important milestone for the Pioneer Press and its circulation department:

Sunday circulation growth of 1,298 copies, to a total of 253,351 — the seventh consecutive positive six-month reporting period. 

Weekday circulation grew 573 copies, to a total of 192,342 — the fifth consecutive positive six-month reporting period.

To give you an idea of how unusual this is, no other top 50 newspaper can make this claim. Indeed, no other top 100 newspaper can make the claim. (The Pioneer Press ranks 46^th on Sunday.)

And it is all the more surprising given that this is a competitive market, and that the Pioneer Press competes directly with a much larger rival. Remember, the competitive footprint is asymmetrical. One hundred percent of Pioneer Press circulation is under competitive threat, while our friends to the west have to compete in only a third of their metropolitan distribution area. I was about to say “a third of their market,” but clearly the east side is not “their market.” With every passing circulation report it becomes more apparent that the Pioneer Press owns the east.

Over the last five years, compared to the March 2004 publishers statement, the Star Tribune has lost more than 170,000 copies of Sunday circulation. Pioneer Press Sunday losses over the same five years? Fewer than 20 copies. 

To give you an idea of how remarkable this is, I point your attention to David Brauer, a writer at MinnPost. According to Brauer, Pioneer Press growth is “miniscule.” We “claim [our] numbers are fourth- best among the nation’s Top 50 papers.” (Emphasis mine.) He likens the Pioneer Press’ steady gains to “Bernie Madoff’s . . . consistently incremental growth.” Brauer wants to know how we are “finagling it,” the level of “discounting needed” and “whether overall circ revenue is up or down in St. Paul.” These are the words of an observer who cannot believe his eyes. News this good simply can’t be true. Or can it?

Setting aside for the moment the insults and condescension, Brauer raises an important point. How is the revenue doing? 

Translation: increased revenue validates increased circulation. 

Answer is, overall circulation revenue is up. Yes, up. Up not only this year, but up over the course of the last five years. And to be fair to Brauer, this is very hard to believe. In today’s marketplace, newspapers can 1) gain circulation at the expense of revenue, or 2) gain revenue at the expense of circulation, but cannot deliver the both/and: gain both circulation and revenue. In fact, the Pioneer Press has delivered the “both/and” — not only this year — but for the last four years. Gained both circulation and revenue.

Next question: ‘if circ revenue is up, is circ profitability somehow down?’ (The hat trick is to simultaneously deliver 1) increased circ volumes, 2) increased circ revenue and 3) increased circ profitability.) Answer: yes, it’s a hat trick. In fact, circulation has delivered increased revenue and profitability for four consecutive years.

As to the “veracity” question (in other words, we are liars), it’s hard to know how to respond. Admittedly I don’t get out much, but this is the first I’ve heard the claim that we are faking it. When the angle “ they do it with discounts” stops working, those with a need to explain it away cry fraud. But there have been no allegations of fraud brought against the Pioneer Press. The logic seems to be that any operation clever enough to create the appearance of simultaneous increases in circulation, revenue and profit, is by definition clever enough to fool the Audit Bureau of Circulation. An idea for the next blog . . . Pioneer Press channels David Copperfield . . .

With respect to the insults and condescension, most of us I suspect have become accustomed to it over the years. We’re the littler paper on the wrong side of the tracks where the buildings are shorter. I’ve been struck by the fact that there’s not all that much cheering for the little guy in these parts.

But that may not be such a bad thing. I believe that one of the most critical ingredients to the staying power of the Pioneer Press is that we take the work seriously - but not ourselves. Every day all of you power up and do the work. No attitude. No pretension. Just the work.

And however successful circulation has been over the last few years, a little modesty is in order. Let’s remember that circulation success is necessary but not sufficient. Circulation revenues are but a small part of the general revenue picture. We cannot be successful with circulation alone. And let’s stipulate right up front that it is unclear how much longer circ can deliver the hat trick. It gets harder every year. This improbable run could end at any time.

Meanwhile, expect to hear more from the blog. Expect it to chip away our apparent success. It can’t be good news. It can’t be true. He will strain for gnats and pronounce them camels.