Nick May <nick@kyushu.com> writes:
> On 28 Dec 2005, at 15:05, Michael(tm <= trademark?) Smith wrote:
Yeah, the "tm" thing is meant to just be a joke -- to make up for
my not having a particularly interesting name otherwise.
> > Care to cite some source for that info?
>
> Of course the big problem with "quotable sources" is that the Graun
> does not release "real data" - and since it isn't clear how one would/
> should do a cost split between the online operation and the print
> operation, there is much scope for financial jiggery pokery.
>
> The Observer has the following (September 11, 2005), quoting the
> chief executive of GNL
>
> <quote>
> 'We are trying to be the best ever newspaper and the best ever
> website, but it is still too early to see exactly how the website
> will be a big revenue earner. But we will keep investing in it,
> because at some stage it will make money, and there are all sorts of
> ways of doing that, including, in some circumstances, charging for
> content.'
> <quote />
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1567198,00.html
I concede that charging for certain content makes a lot of sense.
But the problem with charging for the main daily content is
finding users willing to pay for it. Because as long as competing
sources are not charging users for it, they can always go to one
of those competing sources to get their news.
> Paid content.org has a post on Nov 10, 2005 that says the following....
>
> http://www.paidcontent.org/pc/arch/cat_guardian.shtml
>
> <quote>
> Guardian Online In Profits? [by rafat] : Guardian Online, one of
> the biggest news/newspapers sites in UK, is in profits this year,
> according to Simon Waldman, director of digital publishing at
> Guardian Newspapers. This will come as news and surprise to some
> people, who swore to me over the last 2-3 years or so that the site
> must be bleeding money with all its online efforts on the editorial
> side.
> <quote />
>
> Until I have seen the figures - and the cost allocations - if the
> Graun ever lets them out the door - which I rather doubt it will - I
> will stand by what I have been told.
Understood. But I hope you can also understand why I don't find
that particularly compelling.
--Mike
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://tokyo.metblogs.com/
http://sideshowbarker.net/
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/890
Received on Thu Dec 29 18:24:37 2005