Japan’s Hidden “Oshigami” Problem: Are Newspaper Circulation Figures Reliable?
By Tetsuya Kuroyabu
The English-language Wikipedia has raised questions about the reliability of circulation figures reported by Japanese newspapers:
“Some figures are disputed; the numbers for Japanese newspapers have been subjected to claims of ‘oshigami’…”
The issue known as “oshigami” has remained largely hidden from public view in Japan for more than 50 years, with no clear solution in sight.
“Oshigami” refers to newspapers that publishers or their distribution networks supply to newspaper dealers in quantities exceeding actual subscriber demand. Dealers may still be required to pay for these unsold copies. As a result, the number of newspapers supplied to dealers can be significantly higher than the number actually delivered to paying readers.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed by newspaper dealers seeking compensation for losses allegedly caused by oshigami. However, cases in which plaintiffs have prevailed have been relatively rare.
I have investigated this issue for about 30 years. Based on my research, I estimate that roughly 20 to 40 percent of newspapers supplied by major Japanese publishers may constitute oshigami.
◆One internal document provides a striking example.
In 2004, an internal Mainichi Shimbun document titled Trends in Morning Edition Circulation and Receipts Issued was leaked outside the company.
According to the document, in October 2002, the Mainichi Shimbun’s official morning circulation was 3,953,466 copies. By contrast, newspaper dealers issued only 2,509,139 receipts to readers.
The difference was approximately 1.44 million copies per day—about 36 percent of the reported circulation.
If dealers paid approximately ¥1,500 per month for each such copy, the resulting revenue would amount to about ¥2.16 billion per month, or approximately $13.7 million at current exchange rates. On an annual basis, that would be roughly ¥25.9 billion, or $164 million.
These figures raise a serious question: Why has the problem continued for so long?
In my view, forcing dealers to purchase newspapers substantially beyond actual demand raises serious concerns under Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. Yet the Japan Fair Trade Commission has failed to eliminate the practice.
This creates another troubling question. If major newspaper companies have a serious business vulnerability that government regulators can choose whether or not to pursue, can those newspapers remain fully independent when reporting on the government?
The oshigami problem is therefore more than a dispute over newspaper circulation. It raises fundamental questions about the credibility of circulation figures, the economics of Japan’s newspaper industry, and the independence of Japanese journalism.
