xp "fake scoop" is pushing it a bit considering it was... factually accurate in all respects and leaked by observer execs?
― joe, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:27 (fifteen years ago) link
is the observer about to close or not? do we know for certain if it was totally made up by news int?
― NI, Sunday, 23 August 2009 20:43 (fifteen years ago) link
Private Eye seemed to think they were being cagy about discussing it but definitely considering it, as far as I remember.
― Susan Tully Blanchard (MPx4A), Sunday, 23 August 2009 21:20 (fifteen years ago) link
^I think PE is usually right about these things as they only take sides against the stupid, but with the caveat that there was one of those meetings where all options were trial-ballooned. The immense brand value of being the world's oldest Sunday paper will probably save the Obs from GMG hassle, not an advantage of other loss-making titles.
― challop bread (suzy), Sunday, 23 August 2009 21:37 (fifteen years ago) link
independent deathwatch: closed by xmas says (somewhat shit-stirring) second largest shareholder. losing £70,000 a day, apparently.
"There's no point in us as a company subsidising a newspaper that really nobody wants to read in the United Kingdom," said Denis O'Brien.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSLI32052720090918?sp=true
― joe, Monday, 21 September 2009 10:16 (fifteen years ago) link
I'm amazed it's lasted as long as it has.
― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 21 September 2009 10:53 (fifteen years ago) link
The Independent and presumably the IoS folding would presumably ensure the future of the Observer, what with GMG having the whole centre-left market to itself.
― Matt DC, Monday, 21 September 2009 10:58 (fifteen years ago) link
This Denis O'Brien character seems like a bit of a dick, tbh.
― James Mitchell, Monday, 21 September 2009 11:01 (fifteen years ago) link
Michael Moore on why it's happening here, and not in Europe (true?):
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/09/michael_moore_o.php
― A Patch on Blazing Saddles (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 22 September 2009 04:51 (fifteen years ago) link
not really a comparable situation because we have a basically "national" print media. local press is – mostly – dead here already.
and we are likely going to lose a national paper here, one of the four "qualities", quite soon.
― history mayne, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:10 (fifteen years ago) link
Is it so hard to say "Independent"?
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:15 (fifteen years ago) link
Haha considering how they can't make the Independent mean anything to people *here* how does Morbs knowing the name of the paper make any difference?
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:20 (fifteen years ago) link
exactly
― history mayne, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:27 (fifteen years ago) link
Is there any non-tabloid that still turns a profit? The Telegraph maybe? At this stage of the game, "quality" newspapers are just vanity publishing for billionaires.
― Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:27 (fifteen years ago) link
"at this stage of the game"?
― history mayne, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:30 (fifteen years ago) link
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/SFcYYLIYqZI/AAAAAAAAOjU/V7hJi_29Rx0/s400/citizen+kane.jpg
xpost Point taken, but surely there was a time when there was at least a chance of making some cash? The Sunday Times used to be a cash cow for Murdoch, didn't it?
― Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:33 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah. i reckon the sunday times still does make a profit (?)
― history mayne, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:37 (fifteen years ago) link
xpost think the s-times was making a profit as recently as last year, suspect it will be back in the black as the economy picks up. telegraph made money in 08 as well.
re: local press, it's not dead and is often profitable. the mirror has been propped up by its regional business for years now. dunno why classified ads haven't moved online the way they did in the usa.
― joe, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:40 (fifteen years ago) link
Most local newspaper publishers have been pretty appalling when it comes to creating websites that anyone would actually look at, might be the reason?
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:44 (fifteen years ago) link
Our local paper seems to be thriving, unfortunately. It's hit on the winning formula of "The Past - wasn't it lovely! Modern life is rubbish"
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:47 (fifteen years ago) link
(the fact that most people say "local paper" singular suggests how things have gone down. though it is surprising they even exist tbh.)
― history mayne, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:49 (fifteen years ago) link
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 10:44 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i meant things like craigslist or i guess gumtree here. clearly people use them, but they haven't taken away the ad business of local papers in the way that they seem to have done in the states.
― joe, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:53 (fifteen years ago) link
Ah right - I thought you meant US publishers seeing an upturn in their own online classified sales.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 09:56 (fifteen years ago) link
so, i picked the wrong day to rep for the financial viability of local newspapers. trinity mirror just closed three of them. :(
― joe, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 10:56 (fifteen years ago) link
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/090922tmnorthwales.shtml
The Whitchurch Herald, meanwhile, has a paid-for circulation of 3,883 in a town with a population of just 8,944.
This is one of the papers being closed, presumably selling to 43% of the available marketplace would indicate that it plays/played a pretty major role in the local community? That's really sad.
The Ad Director of the Standard has just left to become Commercial Director of the Indy, which is a weird move all things considered.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:06 (fifteen years ago) link
Big fan of local media in theory, because noone else is keeping an eye on what local govt gets up to - but every time I see a story I know something about, it's teeth-clenchingly wrong
― Ismael Klata, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 12:33 (fifteen years ago) link
wasn't sure where to put this, so i'm putting it here. 1981 report on first attempts at getting the news online. feel a bit like sarah connor when she meets the guy who invented skynet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTn4FljUQ
― joe, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 14:18 (fifteen years ago) link
Evening Standard goes free from Monday: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/942719/
― James Mitchell, Friday, 2 October 2009 09:31 (fourteen years ago) link
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/942719/London-Evening-Standard-become-free-circulation-paper/
― Ned Trifle (Notinmyname), Friday, 2 October 2009 09:39 (fourteen years ago) link
The Standard's Russian owner Alexander Lebedev said his intention to make the paper available to a wider audience was for it to function as a "deterrent against corruption".
lol
― Ned Trifle (Notinmyname), Friday, 2 October 2009 09:40 (fourteen years ago) link
It's been pretty much free for a while now anyway. Anytime I've been heading home later than about 8 in the past I've seen the same guys that give out other freesheets, only wearing yellow t-shirts instead of purple.
― Lovely and tender, like velvet. (Upt0eleven), Friday, 2 October 2009 09:47 (fourteen years ago) link
It was only free after 8pm because no fucker bought it after then. And it probably works out cheaper to pay guys to hand them out rather than pulp or landfill the leftover copies.
― James Mitchell, Friday, 2 October 2009 09:53 (fourteen years ago) link
And some quick sums show that all those 50p sales add up to £32mn a year - does doubling its income from advertising cover that? I'd guess so.
― James Mitchell, Friday, 2 October 2009 09:58 (fourteen years ago) link
The most important subset of numbers are 155 and 5. They refer to £155, the worth of an average reader to a paid-for newspaper a year in 2008. It breaks down to £90 a year from purchase price and £65 from advertising. Annual revenue from newspaper online totals just £5.
― James Mitchell, Monday, 5 October 2009 10:56 (fourteen years ago) link
Standard going freesheet is unbelievably stupid of them right now, surely? Although presumably this will kill the London Lite with a stroke though?
― Matt DC, Monday, 5 October 2009 11:00 (fourteen years ago) link
Unbelievably stupid if Lebedev has any interest in running the paper as a "business". Which it's pretty clear he doesn't, right?
― Lovely and tender, like velvet. (Upt0eleven), Monday, 5 October 2009 11:03 (fourteen years ago) link
(rookie qn: presumably ad rates are much lower in free papers?)
― history mayne, Monday, 5 October 2009 11:07 (fourteen years ago) link
wouldn't they be higher, with the presumed higher readership figures of a free sheet?
― butchered in the spooky twilight (stevie), Monday, 5 October 2009 11:10 (fourteen years ago) link
my guess is that advertisers are as concerned with quality (wealth) of readers as much as with quantity.
― history mayne, Monday, 5 October 2009 11:12 (fourteen years ago) link
Not if you are just turning to freesheet. Presumably they'll drop the ad rates as low as they can to draw advertisers.
xp
― young depardieu looming out of void in hour of profound triumph (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 5 October 2009 11:13 (fourteen years ago) link
“There are certain facts you can't argue with,” says one senior executive. “If the recession lasts too long, we will run out of money.”
― James Mitchell, Monday, 5 October 2009 14:15 (fourteen years ago) link
In much the same way that they would support an author jailed on trumped-up charges in a distant failed state, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and 50 other luminaries signed an open letter of support for the 218-year-old newspaper. At a subsequent public meeting in London, chaired by the comedian David Mitchell, 300 well-wishers included the actor Simon Callow, the broadcaster John Humphries and the film critic Barry Norman.
Wonder what a Venn diagram of this vs Roman Polanski campaigners looks like.
― numetrical changeover (onimo), Monday, 5 October 2009 14:28 (fourteen years ago) link
The end result:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/mozzer232/FATHER_TED_Down_with_this_sort_of_t.jpg
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 5 October 2009 14:33 (fourteen years ago) link
Not newspapers, but Conde Nast is closing Gourmet and Modern Bride.
― Squash weather (Eazy), Monday, 5 October 2009 14:42 (fourteen years ago) link
this article is HILARIOUS
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 27 January 2010 13:42 (fourteen years ago) link
in the "hysterical laughter that becomes hysterical crying" sense
― scent of a wolfman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 27 January 2010 13:55 (fourteen years ago) link
It's totally misleading, too: most of their readers get it for free w/cable subscription so of course nobody's going to pay for it. (Also, isn't Newsday shit? Hardly news that it's tough to sell rubbish)
― stet, Wednesday, 27 January 2010 14:09 (fourteen years ago) link
so why bother trying to charge for it if "most of their readers get it for free"?
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 27 January 2010 14:13 (fourteen years ago) link
to get $$ iirc
― scent of a wolfman (s1ocki), Wednesday, 27 January 2010 14:14 (fourteen years ago) link