Guardian breaks even helped by success of supporter strategy
theguardian.com/media/2019/may/01/guardian-br...
theguardian.comPosted May 1, 2019, 8:39 AM UTC
4029
theguardian.comTBF the Gaurdian is not that bad considering what it's going up against.
7
Print advertising – once the bedrock of all newspaper income - accounts for 8% of the company’s total revenue, although the business remains committed to producing a print newspaper and has 110,000 print subscribers across the Guardian, Observer and Guardian Weekly.
Guardian circulation down to avg 134,000 per day, from 154,000 in 2016 and descending. That's blog-level territory.
7
I don't know if that's subscribers or readers. They didn't say how many copies they were selling a day.
6
I based my comment off these stats from ABC.
2
So then I definitely have no idea where they got the 110k figure from. Unless that's listed separately to the Observer and Weekly, which seems disingenuous at best.
1
The ABC stats are just for the Guardian. Subs are 57k? I guess you could add the sister papers to get 110k. They do state that in the quote I made.
3
What is blog-level territory? They have 1.35 billion page views a month and 660,000 regular subscriptions. Revenues of £200 million + a year. Not sure any blogs operate at such a scale.
2
What is blog-level territory?
Guardian circulation
3
Some good news for a change.
6
Why not guardian list themselves public and have access to public funds and better themselves with larger investments?
0
They don't need it. They have a massive trust fund behind them and the paper is funded from income from the trust rather than eating into the balance of the fund. The Guardian can continue for another 100 years.
2
Regardless of your feelings towards The Guardian, it's good news that at least one reputable investigative paper in the UK is making a profit.
IDK, really not a fan of their opinion pieces that get touted around here as some kind of dogma but are almost always clickbait.
When that's presented as fact / news, it makes me question the reputation of the source.
Guardian opinion articles are clearly marked as such. They have "commentisfree" in the url, headlines on the site start with an orange quote mark and the pages are off-white rather than white that news articles are.
If you can't tell the difference between opinion pieces and news articles, I don't know what to tell you.
They're not. The ones in the opinion section are, but opinion pieces inside the other sections of the paper and are subsequently unmarked are very common.
[citation needed]
I've never seen an opinion piece outside of comment is free.
Can you provide an example? I have been unable to find one.
Ask those who post and present them as factual - I can tell they're opinion pieces but am not impressed people keep presenting them as fact.
No one posts them to the sub as fact; they're posted here "as is". It's up to each of us to evaluate sources and to know the difference between news and opinion.
Slaps. Actually guardian newspapers is easier/harder to read. Lefties when it comes to reporting, the could really write and tell/explain why. Whereas righties have a simple way of reporting. They just tell you in a simple short and without additional stuff.
Fucking hell, are you having a stroke? That is barely English.
If you think that is an example of a "simple short" that you admire, whatever that is, then no wonder there is a negative correlation between education and right wing support.
Slaps. Him think righties writey in a way that speaks the words into brains more easier but lefties he no likey because they always say things that sentences not so well into his before-thoughts because lefties too many words have. Slaps again.
I think was the gist, but I have never exoerienced a stroke.
Except it kinda isn't making money in any real sense, the only reason its in "profit" is because the trust that backs it up is paying part of its bills.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48111464
So when you say
and the headline stats that its cause of support strategy, but really its the big trust fund that means they are in profit, the reputable paper could be seen as being a bit dishonest :p
The Scott Trust is one of their sources of funding. The money used to pay for the GMG doesn't eat into the fund balance. They say all of this in the article. That's good news for the sustainability of the paper.
None of your comment has countered the point about the article from the "reputable paper" being dishonest. In fact it backs it up.
As you say its a source of funding, a rather significant one and is why its broken even, hence saying its due to the supporter strategy is a bit dishonest :p
To me it is similar to saying some of their profits came from investments. That's not dishonest, it's just including all income.
[removed]