SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,069
It’s loss making despite the begging.TBF, the Guardian only makes a small 'profit' because it is constantly sending begging letters to anyone who visits the site
It’s loss making despite the begging.TBF, the Guardian only makes a small 'profit' because it is constantly sending begging letters to anyone who visits the site
Athletic schmathleticA new subscription site, which has tapped up tonnes of esteemed journalists and reporters and guys with links to clubs... Basically trying to get rid of the tabloid-y click bait nonsense and actually have an organised medium where credible reports from credible people can share their info.
Well worth a subscription tbh.
It seems that about a dozen of us have signed up already from this forum alone. That’s worth an awful lot of clicks.I don't quite get the model to be honest, from a business front, anyhow.
I understand most of the guys are on short term contracts and have to accumulate a set amount of followers and subs inside the first six months.
The Sun had to come from behind a pay wall, even with their vast resources, so I'm not sure people in this country are willing to pay for content which might be considered more left field.
Ultimately, people want news and stuff they didn't already know.
A number of the guys who have joined were local patch journos, so were privy to briefs and sharing amongst the wider group.
There is no way the local pack will agree to that continuing for people who are now having to charge for 'privileged' steers.
Especially so, when the pack will still be obtaining and sharing that news for free.
When the organisation makes the journo the centre of the story, it shows you how far standards have fallen and how personality-driven things have become.
The Athletic are paying big salaries but I am interested to see how long that will be sustained if not aligned with big subscription numbers.
Quality journalism doesn't hold any guarantee on revenues.
The Guardian (if that's your bag) sells tiny numbers and has financially been on its arse for years.
GMG announced 12 months ago that they were just in the black, but still needed contributions from online readers so they could continue to promote independent journalism.
A falsehood then:It’s probably not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48111464
See post above. (And it was 3 a bit months ago rather than 12)GMG announced 12 months ago that they were just in the black, but still needed contributions from online readers so they could continue to promote independent journalism.
A new subscription site, which has tapped up tonnes of esteemed journalists and reporters and guys with links to clubs... Basically trying to get rid of the tabloid-y click bait nonsense and actually have an organised medium where credible reports from credible people can share their info.
Well worth a subscription tbh.
I thought that until I realised that their idea of an "esteemed journalist" is James Pearce, cult resident in chief at the Lie-verpool Echo