Double dip looms? (Here it comes,here comes the night)

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/04/double-dip-recession-fears-economy

 

[Napster]

considering the Guardian is losing so much money at the moment, I don't trust its financial journalism.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

considering the Guardian is losing so much money at the moment, I don't trust its financial journalism.

At least they haven't needed to errect a paywall round their online site(unlike another paper I could mention).;)
Still, I'm a happy bunny since I managed to get a broadsheet copy of the Grauniad at Avingon station early this am.:clap:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

At least they haven't needed to errect a paywall round their online site(unlike another paper I could mention).;)
Still, I'm a happy bunny since I managed to get a broadsheet copy of the Grauniad at Avingon station early this am.:clap:

I'm sure the budgies are relieved now they have something to line their cage.

 

[Napster]

At least they haven't needed to errect a paywall round their online site(unlike another paper I could mention).;)
Still, I'm a happy bunny since I managed to get a broadsheet copy of the Grauniad at Avingon station early this am.:clap:

Funnily enough, I think the paywall works. They have now a good quality readership who provide a steady income stream, who can be compartmentalised to help draw in advertising as well. Why should newspapers be free?
The Grauniad is losing about £30m a year - redundancies all round, and they insist on a free-web service. It's not sustainable.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Funnily enough, I think the paywall works. They have now a good quality readership who provide a steady income stream, who can be compartmentalised to help draw in advertising as well. Why should newspapers be free?
The Grauniad is losing about £30m a year - redundancies all round, and they insist on a free-web service. It's not sustainable.

The jury's still out on Murdoch's experiment.Even he refused to talk about it yesterday at his corp. AGM.
The Guardian's(and many others)philosophy is that advertising will eventually pay for their free online service.
In answer to your question; I've been quite happy to pay to download articles from the FT,Economist and The Indy etc in the past.I'd do the same for the Guardian too if they chose to go down that road.

 

[Napster]

The jury's still out on Murdoch's experiment.Even he refused to talk about it yesterday at his corp. AGM.
The Guardian's(and many others)philosophy is that advertising will eventually pay for their free online service.
In answer to your question; I've been quite happy to pay to download articles from the FT,Economist and The Indy etc in the past.I'd do the same for the Guardian too if they chose to go down that road.

Fair enough. Internet advertising only works if they know the audience. Time will tell.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm sure the budgies are relieved now they have something to line their cage.

No budgies here, as we're staying at my brother-in-law's gaff(or at home either) but we did bring our cat with us and Tio seems to appreciate the Guardian as litter lining and for the occasional lounge on too.;)

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Funnily enough, I think the paywall works. They have now a good quality readership who provide a steady income stream, who can be compartmentalised to help draw in advertising as well. Why should newspapers be free?
The Grauniad is losing about £30m a year - redundancies all round, and they insist on a free-web service. It's not sustainable.

The Grauniad's sums don't add up and I'm not convinced they've worked out how to make money from their web-site, but have you seen how the Torygraph is shedding readers in their relentless march downmarket?

The Sun is about the only one holding steady at the moment. I think Murdoch's implemented the paywall with the intention not so much of making money from the internet side, but on preventing people opting out of buying the paper version, because they can access it for free on-line.

 

[Napster]

The Sun is about the only one holding steady at the moment. I think Murdoch's implemented the paywall with the intention not so much of making money from the internet side, but on preventing people opting out of buying the paper version, because they can access it for free on-line.

Yeah, maybe that's right to a point. But I can see subs rising on the Internet side, so income will increase. The Sun works because it's cheap and believe it or not, the sports is well-written compared to other tabs.

 

[EastStandBlue]

IMO there should be two tiers of content. News should be free to access, as that can be sourced on any other site, but profiles, comment, exclusive interviews and features should be available to subscribers. Take the Guardian Sport as an example, they have some of the better sport writers who write consistently engaging features (David Conn, Paul Hayward), yet their work is free to access.

The Times has since lost 90% of its readership, but that 10% are making a considerable contribution towards the running costs of the paper and, let's face it, something needs to happen as the industry is on its knees.

 

[Napster]

The Times has since lost 90% of its readership, but that 10% are making a considerable contribution towards the running costs of the paper and, let's face it, something needs to happen as the industry is on its knees.

Last figures I saw was 30% loss.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Last figures I saw was 30% loss.

I thought that was the figure of readers who merely registered before subscribing? Mind you, the figures I saw were from two weeks ago and in The Guardian, so they could be hugely embelished/out of date.

 

[Napster]

I thought that was the figure of readers who merely registered before subscribing? Mind you, the figures I saw were from two weeks ago and in The Guardian, so they could be hugely embelished/out of date.

I'm sure I read it in the Eye. Mind you, more interesting is the news that 12,500 people have so far paid for The Times app for Apple's iPad, which at £9.99 for 30 days is more expensive than access to the website. That's where the revenue will come from...

 

[EastStandBlue]

I'm sure I read it in the Eye. Mind you, more interesting is the news that 12,500 people have so far paid for The Times app for Apple's iPad, which at £9.99 for 30 days is more expensive than access to the website. That's where the revenue will come from...

Probably says a lot about the average iPad user, too...

 

[Boreham Shrimper]

I'm sure I read it in the Eye. Mind you, more interesting is the news that 12,500 people have so far paid for The Times app for Apple's iPad, which at £9.99 for 30 days is more expensive than access to the website. That's where the revenue will come from...

Maybe but so far the subscription has been renewed free of charge for two successive months, meaning iPad users have effectively paid £3.33 per month thus far. That's more like it!

 

[MrB]

The phrase 'Double Dip' has a whole different meaning for me.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The phrase 'Double Dip' has a whole different meaning for me.

Icecream? :unsure:

 

[Rob Noxious]

Icecream? :unsure:

Methinks Mr B may be talking more 69 than 99. :sherlock:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Methinks Mr B may be talking more 69 than 99. :sherlock:

Ha!That had crossed my mind too.;)