I’m not sure that the number of newspaper readers per copy is greater than one — in many cases, I think it is less than one, but I’ll give you that point regardless.

I think the more important point is the one you allude to, which is that even “readers” of the paper don’t actually read most of what newspapers and advertisers convince themselves they do.

Online, by contrast, it’s quite easy to see what people actually have read — on an individual article basis — and how long they read it for (although in some cases, such data may measure people who kept a page open but didn’t actually read it).

I suppose we will have to wait for the new brain-implant technology to answer this one conclusively

I don’t believe the NRS readership figures are deliberately exaggerated. The NRS in the UK is a joint effort by advertisers and media owners, so I don’t see why it would do that. But I suspect that their definition of having read a newspaper may be something that allows anyone who saw a copy lying around the house or office yesterday and used it to check the football scores to tick a box marking them out as a reader.

I would say that the number of newspaper readers per copy is probably greater than one (I’d put it at about 2 maybe less); while the number of unique users who are actually unique (ie different people) is probably less than one (cookie deletion, repeat use at home and work etc). The exact numbers, frustratingly, are still elusive. Can’t wait for August though!