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

291–300 of 365 posts

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

#291

Post by lars_francke »

I have been on the Guardian support pages for at least a dozen times and I'd love to contribute but I don't find they make it easy.

There's a subscription for 14,99€/month (https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int) then there's the premium app which is also called subscription (https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1) for 2,49 or so and then there's the Support thing (https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter) for 4,99€/month. Some of these seem to include the other options...but I'm not sure. So I've just always given up. In addition Guardian Weekly doesn't seem to have a digital only version?

I've really tried. And I've also tried contacting their support but instead of answering my question they've canceled my subscription to Guardian Weekly. That was when I've just given up.

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

#292

Post by jimsmart »

lars_francke wrote: post #291

I have been on the Guardian support pages for at least a dozen times and I'd love to contribute but I don't find they make it easy. There's a subscription for 14,99€/month ( https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int ) then there's the premium app which is also called subscription ( https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1 ) for 2,49 or so and then there's the Support thing ( https://membership.theg…

In the UK we are given the option for a one-off contribution. It's quite an oversight if they're not offering that outside of the UK.

https://support.theguardian.com/uk

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

#293

Post by jchavannes »

Thought I'd mention yours.org [1] which has multiple ways of monetizing content. With micropayments it's much more feasible to support this type of model. See their FAQ for more info [2].

[1] https://www.yours.org/

[2] https://www.yours.org/faq/

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

#294

Post by dreamfactored »

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…

US and UK publishing businesses are radically different in subscription revenues. They have traditionally made up a tiny proportion for UK publishers.

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

#295

Post by CaptSpify »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #47
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…

Back in the day, a typical newspaper made about 80% of it's revenue from advertisers (including the classifieds), and about 80% of its costs were printing & distribution. So free Internet distribution should have been 80% of the revenue at 20% of the cost... :)

How much have production costs dropped from print to the web? I'm guessing it's not 80%, but it should be a fairly substantial amount.

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

#296

Post by 115100 »

jimnotgym wrote: post #247
eighthnate wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda.

> Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? If you think there is a story here report it to the Electoral commission. I'm sure they could run this in parallel with the Arron Banks investigation > It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda. Leaving the pro-Brexit camp with just The Times. Oh and the Mail... and the Express, the Sun, the Telegraph..…

The Times endorsed Remain during the referendum campaign.

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

#297

Post by stfu »

mitjak wrote: post #289
stfu wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

58.9% of Americans voted last election. Has the Guardian already lost that much touch with reality to accept that those 41.1% of the population exist who don't care about their outrage theater?

America is not the world but that's not even the point. You're claiming they're politicizing the world. Election numbers don't represent willingness to make something political or whether it is. Not voting is a political decision.

I am only talking about the US situation here and treating the situation as if the Guardian were a US publication. That whole 'foreign media trying to meddle with US politics' narrative has reached an ironical meme status that is not worth arguing over any more.

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

#298

Post by Jedd »

calcifer wrote: post #290
Jedd wrote: post #86

As much as I enjoy the quality of journalism from them, claims of The Guardian struggling, or being without sin (in the context of throwing stones around tax avoidance, especially post-Panama & Paradise papers, and at the risk of being labelled a whatbouter) should be considered in context. That context is that they've got some pretty serious claims of tax avoidance in their not-too-distant past. The Spectator ran a…

The Guardian responded to various such claims over the years in quite a bit of detail [1]. A choice quote: > The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk". > When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Ri…

Indeed, it's a tricky area.

With Panama / Paradise papers as well, most players are acting just within the letter of the law, though arguably not the intent, or at least the spirit, and outside observers (typically those without access to the expertise necessary to construct their financial affairs with such tax-minimising efficiency) are going to be frustrated by the brazen appearance of unfairness.

As I noted, Spectator and other publications are going to be strongly partisan around any review of the Guardian's affairs.

OTOH, articles published by the Guardian, about the Guardian, asserting the Guardian has done nothing wrong, are going to struggle to appear impartial.

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

#299

Post by kristineberth »

jopsen wrote: post #223
bryanlarsen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the day, a typical newspaper made about 80% of it's revenue from advertisers (including the classifieds), and about 80% of its costs were printing & distribution. So free Internet distribution should have been 80% of the revenue at 20% of the cost... :)

There is probably not as much money in ads as there used to be. In the good old days there was no alternative to print media ads. Today there is so much more ad space available.

Nearly all the revenue in ads has now been captured by Google and Facebook, which is the far greater challenge for publishers.

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

#300

Post by skinnymuch »

combatentropy wrote: post #133
VeejayRampay wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actu…

37Signals said the same thing about applications. Better to have 10,000 users at $30 per month than 100 at $3,000 per month. If a single customer is paying a lot, then you are tempted to make whatever changes they ask for to your application, and it's harder to stand up against featuritis or illogical design.

Basecamp example is good but they do veer a bit away in terms of pricing. The price is too low still for any customer to have pull, but at $100/month, it also leaves out a lot of people. Not sure if there's a point in any of this. I guess I'm just adding on. Since the saying still works if $30 or $100 a month.
Post reply on HN