Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
You see this story about the potential end of the Guardian print editions?
Regardless of your political persuasion, this would be an incredibly bad thing.
Though the ultimate result seems pretty likely.
or just do the inevitable a couple of years ahead of time.
but it realistically can't go on operating this way for much longer.
might not provide the necessary lift.
although the liberal guilt would be unbearable
then it's reading the comments beneath it.
It has been suggested that they've been struggling to balance the books for a long time.
I guess we only want celeb rags and/or right-wing papers then, yes?
It's their single biggest rival for local news coverage. And 'free'.
but then I remembered you rip everything off the online version anyway.
I wonder what the independent's finances look like since it (+ the i) started outselling the graun?
what will go first: printed daily national guardian, or hmv (as know it)?
so probably nothing to worry about for them
his son's just been made editor-in-chief of one of their online components too.
or joint owns it. idk
i'm just wondering what the financial 'viability' of the indy + i is like compared to the guardian. the shitty metro can exist with a cover price of zero, and the rather less shitty guardian can't. the i has proved to be popular (albeit not as popular as the metro) whilst not needing to sink to the shitty level of the metro. i realise that the i is essentially just an edited version of the independent, but i'm just wondering aloud as to whether the guardian could come up with something more slimline that contained less... how do i phrase this?... lifestyle bullshit. the reams and reams of non-news bilge they print doesn't come for free. having said that, barely any paper in history has made money from straight up news alone.
somewhere down the line
the impression i get is that it's fairly standalone, financially, and not really subsidised. (no real grounding for that, though, other than the impression that it's put together by about three interns copypasting press releases and yesterdays news)
Both talk quite openly about this happening in the next 18 months or so. Not sure if that means anything tbh.
It's not a pretty sound.
Just the Saturday edition.
Sod that, the i newspaper saves a whole pound on that. It is always a good read though, online just isn't the same. It seems to get loads of people whinging about its politics and how it is incredibly left wing, usually by people who haven't actually read it...
Says they could probably sort it all out if they were just more ruthless about cuts - apparently they have about 750 staff, and they could probably get by with 500, but they refuse to make compulsory redundancies. Guardian's a lot bigger then the magazine I write for, but 750 seems like A LOT.
It's (probably) quite difficult to run a quality newspaper on a skeleton staff though, look at The Independent.
but they have strong unions and it was pissing a lot of people off (naturally) so they'll be avoiding that if they can.
they've not made a single person redundant
I just rememeber a fai bit of bad feeling and people worried about their jobs. And stuff like not refilling positions when people leave, putting more presure on those left etc.
"Apparently they have about 750 staff, and they could probably get by with 500, but they refuse to make compulsory redundancies."
The Guardian is heavily unionised (most editorial staff are in the NUJ, including the editor) - and a compulsory redundancy will lead to an automatic strike ballot - so it's not really a case of "refusing," more that it would be immensely destructive to do so.
1. Realise paper is losing money.
2. Decide paper needs to make cuts of some sort.
3. Identify that redundancies are a key part of that.
4. Make relevant staff redundant (providing lawful redundancy notice and payments), accepting that the short term financial hit will be key to longer term sustainability.
5. Carry on and hopefully make a profit now that a bullet has been bitten.
Are we saying that #4 (or even #3) alone would provoke strikes? JFC if so. JFC. Fuck that.
Yes, though - a single compulsory redundancy = strike ballot. Not that the union will necessarily vote in favour of a strike, but there's a reasonable chance it would.
^Isn't that Unite's slogan I see on posters during strikes/protests? It might actually be the Socialist Worker come to think of it, but it's all the same.
Also, it's my understanding from the Guardian that austerity and staffing cutbacks are not the correct route out of a debt crisis. They're only practicing what they preach, and as we can see it's *very* successful.
But it's Hmmm, Interesting that you consider The Guardian to be an essential public service.
- Every guardian employee had to give 35% of their income back to the group.
- they spent all the rest of their money buying copies of the paper.
I'll have you know that I've been allowed to throw out the plastic mattress cover this year.
my reply is well in the wrong place. Was to TaylorSwift, who i thought posted in a similar style to you.
I wasn't commenting on your bedwetting nature. That was never in doubt. [safetywink] :)
Not marckee, but I set up a new username as I wanted to stay a bit anon (I work at the Guardian)
A joke paper only read by insecure bedwetters.
i could be having a mental breakdown.
and a tweet from the editor saying "Yeah we looked at it and it wouldn't make financial sense" - that's needlessly defensive?
it just repeats the same unattributed gossip as in the other piece, without any attempt to confirm or deny it. THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL JOURNALISM.
keep friday, saturday and sunday for the supplements...
but if they make the weekday editions smaller and cheaper, more like the guardian global edition, i'd be much more inclined to purchase.
not sure how or if that would actually benefit them financially though.
The diversity of content and their ability to give focus to stories that don't get the column inches in other websites/newspapers.
Without by any means being perfect, they also try - both as a paper and some of the individual writers - to look beyond the conventional British/Western perspective on world affairs. Genuine attempts made to talk about the Middle East without being patronising or reductionist.
The daily version is mostly gubbins but I would sorely miss the weekly if that went.
Can't believe anyone would try to seriously suggest it's superior to the Times.
To be frank, i find almost all Guardian opinion pieces or columns to be unreadable, self-absorbed pap.
RIP Telegraph print edition?
Still, it'll outlive the Guardian. I can see The Times being the last proper newspaper to run a print edition.
The Telegraph'll do alright as a print edition as its core readership are the sort of old fashioned people who like reading a physical newspaper.
The Guardian's problem is that many of the people who read it are trendy belms who are entirely comfortable reading stuff for free on their ipads.
It's cross-subsidized by the Sun and BSkyB.
probably because I didn't.
Besides, the Guardian has been propped up by Autotrader for years, they should incorporate the two and create the ultimate resource for a used Prius.
are literally unbelievable.
I honestly have no idea why anyone would feel such aggression towards a newspaper...
I have no idea why. Its readership is in the low hundreds of thousands, and it is pretty inoffensive generally. I suspect those complaining haven't actually read it and just have this caricature in their head of a ranting left wing nutcase readership who want to force us all to become part of France while holding hands with transgendered blind Asian children or something. I suppose it is like many people's mental image of an agry frothing Mail reader, when the reality is that they are just people's Grans.
Highest readership of any UK newspaper actually, if you include print and online
*pushes glasses up nose*
which is really just code for liberal Americans like it as their press is so terrible. Best not mention that terrible 'email an American and ask them not to vote Bush' project from a few years back.
I love the guardian but that was embarrassing.
'losses of £44m a year.' ????
how is that even possible?
The Scott Trust was set up specifically with the purpose of investing in other areas and using the profits to sustain the newspaper.
"The Guardian Media Group was on average during this period the persistent highest payer of tax in its sector, declaring a rate over the period that was almost exactly that expected of it in the UK, and settling a liability only a little less than that.
It does have a tax gap, but it is not significant, its prior year adjustments to its declared tax are lower than average, and it does therefore appear to indicate a high rate of tax compliance within its accounts when compared to the sector and other companies I have researched"
(see Eyes passim ad infinitum) but I guess the print edition has been the victim of the success of the online edition. I'm as guilty as the next man of reading the Guardian without actually buying it.
Would the loss of the print edition, whilst (somehow) maintaining an online edition, be really such a tragedy? Assuming it can be done of course, and that's a big assumption, admittedly.
Papers might be losing money, but they still have cash coming in from the ads.
So unless the Guardian can come up with something no one else has, or uses a subscription model (which the jury is fairly out on), there's no real way to pay the journalists just using a website.
How will I know how to be middle-class?
that's about it