Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 365 posts

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#91

Post by VeejayRampay »

f055 wrote: post #10

This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequen…

Also, individuals paying for a subscription have no effect on the editorial line of a given newspaper. There's been a case recently in France where a billionaire was involved in the infamous Paradise Papers. Some newspaper wrote a lengthy piece about it and it turns out said billionaire pulled 600.000 euros of ads from the outlet a few weeks later. Totally coincidental of course :)

That cannot really happen with actual subscribers. They can pull their subscription en masse if the editorial line doesn't please them, but they cannot endanger the livelihood of the newspaper as one fell swoop like that.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#92

Post by gadders »

alva wrote: post #69
drinchev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Guardian is successful, because of "supporters" and not >subscribers<. It's different than WSJ, where they lock the content, until you pay. The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one.

Important to note that the Guardian is not actually financially successful at all. They have been suffering heavy losses for years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/01/heavy-losses-...

They also make use of offshore tax structures to minimise their taxes, such as the £302m profit from selling Auto Trader magazine.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-...

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#93

Post by gadders »

scandox wrote: post #42

I sometimes feel like there isn't much alternative to The Guardian - on the other hand the opinion pieces are often wearisome and at times the whole thing starts to feel like a parody of itself. It is as if, in becoming "worthy" of "support" it has to crank itself up to an insane degree...just as sugary drinks become more sugary over time to retain their core drinkers. This is especially noticeable when ludicrous lif…

Some good examples collected here: https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/08/22/guardian-columns-look-l...

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#94

Post by eli_gottlieb »

f055 wrote: post #10

This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequen…

Mind, it would really help if I could get the newspaper I actually want delivered to where I live. Call me snooty, but I want to read the New York Times, not the Boston Globe. The Globe isn't local enough for those of us living outside Boston proper, but it just doesn't have the national- and global-scale content of the Times.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#95

Post by gadders »

caoilte wrote: post #18

That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors. I would pay £5/month to the Guardian and be happy for them to take a 30% administrative cut if they ring fenced the rest for writers I want to support. The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. Only experimenting with democratisa…

The Scott Trust was created to avoid the paying of inheritance tax.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#96

Post by gadders »

calcifer wrote: post #34
monksy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with the concept of only supporting the writers that you like. I used to like the Guardian because they had good journalism. However, the opinion pieces are absolutely atrocious and detract the quality of the paper. For example, there was an article in my google now articles recommended from the guardian that was "Milo Yiannopolous has huge support in Australia, men must call him out."

That opinion piece is titled " If Milo Yiannopoulos has huge support in Australia, men must call him out". I wasn't aware of the article before your post, but now that I've read it, I don't see anything controversial (much less "atrocious") in it. Care to elaborate?

They later changed the headline to add "If".

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#97

Post by calcifer »

Chris2048 wrote: post #89
calcifer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US

Not in print though, and the linked article is from the UK version, so statements about the status-quo in the UK edition are still relevant.

Unfortunately, the opinions of a sitting US president on any given issue has relevance not just for the US, but for the world as well. As long as that remains true, status-quo being Trump is a concern for everyone.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#99

Post by klmr »

harryf wrote: post #61
drinchev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Guardian is successful, because of "supporters" and not >subscribers<. It's different than WSJ, where they lock the content, until you pay. The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one.

> The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one Have any newspapers experimented with crowd-funding stories? This Niemanlabs report suggests none of the big names had as of Sept 2016 - http://niemanreports.org/articles/crowdfunding-the-news/ - wonder if that's changed?

Yes, there’s a German platform that did this fairly successfully: Krautreporter [1] (the article mentions that they were in turn inspired by a Dutch magazine). I know nothing about their finances but they seem to be doing well, and have established themselves as a somewhat niche but serious competitor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krautreporter

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#100

Post by gadders »

calcifer wrote: post #24
caoilte wrote: post #18

That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors. I would pay £5/month to the Guardian and be happy for them to take a 30% administrative cut if they ring fenced the rest for writers I want to support. The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. Only experimenting with democratisa…

> The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. > nepotist trap it has fallen into. Would you care to elaborate on these a little bit? I'm a long time supporter of Guardian and this is the first time I've seen a nepotism complaint.

I guess it's Alan Rusbridger employing his wife and daughter: http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-gu...
Post reply on HN