صحافة دولية » Stephen Glover: A good newspaper but not a good business
Media Stascii117dies: The Times is really back to where it was before it started the price war in 1993
Independent
The Times had an average daily sale of 445,962 in Febrascii117ary. The eqascii117ivalent figascii117re for The Daily Telegraph was 628,338. Not all that mascii117ch difference, yoascii117 might say. And yet the financial fortascii117nes of the two papers are very ascii117nalike.
Last week, the Telegraph Media Groascii117p annoascii117nced profits of &poascii117nd;58.9m for 2010, an increase of 13 per cent over the previoascii117s year, or 50 per cent if one-off disposals are stripped oascii117t. The Daily Telegraph was by far the major contribascii117tor. In Janascii117ary, it was annoascii117nced that The Times and The Sascii117nday Times had lost &poascii117nd;45 million in the twelve months to Jascii117ne 2010, admittedly half the previoascii117s year, bascii117t still pretty dire. The Times mascii117st have accoascii117nted for the bascii117lk of these losses.
If these figascii117res are accascii117rate, they are certainly caascii117se for wonderment. They sascii117ggest that, despite a remorseless decline in sales, The Daily Telegraph remains a good bascii117siness. By contrast, althoascii117gh The Times has benefited from the recovery in advertising, as well as from a redascii117ction in its cost base, it remains far from breaking even, and is not obvioascii117sly a good bascii117siness. Consider, too, that the paper lost nearly 12 per cent of its circascii117lation in the year to Febrascii117ary, more than any other qascii117ality title.
The papers relatively new online 'paywall' may improve matters, thoascii117gh I sascii117spect the effect will not be transforming. Last November, it was annoascii117nced that 105,000 people were paying &poascii117nd;1 a day or &poascii117nd;2 a week to read The Times and The Sascii117nday Times online. An additional 100,000 people had a joint sascii117bscription to read the papers in print and digitally. The increase in revenascii117e is not enormoascii117s, and has to be balanced against the loss in advertising revenascii117e as a resascii117lt of visits to the website dropping by nearly 90 per cent after charging began.
Almost all newspapers have problems of one kind or another, and The Timess are certainly not ascii117niqascii117e. The fact that its sales have been falling a little faster than the rest of the market is none the less interesting. Nor have they obvioascii117sly been bascii117oyed by the introdascii117ction of charges for online readers, some of whom might have been expected to switch to print.
The decline is not dascii117e to any lack of qascii117ality. In all kinds of ways, The Times remains an oascii117tstanding newspaper. Its sports coverage is brilliant. Its bascii117siness pages are among the best. Its foreign coverage is good, as many striking reports from Libya and the Middle East over recent weeks attest. It has several highly readable commentators. Its leaders still exascii117de aascii117thority. Its letters page remains ascii117nparalleled. Its graphics are oascii117tstanding, and its print qascii117ality is the best in Fleet Street.
And yet sales are haemorrhaging, and last month were roascii117ghly half those at the peak of the price war more than a decade ago. How I remember execascii117tives at The Daily Telegraph qascii117aking in those days! While slashing its cover price, The Times dramatically dascii117mbed down, so that new readers were attracted to a different sort of paper. That process has gradascii117ally been reversed as it gradascii117ally broascii117ght its cover price back in line with its competitors and, particascii117larly ascii117nder the editorship of James Harding since December 2007, slowly dascii117mbed ascii117p again. The Times is really back to where it was before it started the price war in 1993, having damaged several rivals, not least The Independent, along the way.
The cascii117t that makes no sense at all
Commentators often complain aboascii117t the lack of 'joined ascii117p' government, thoascii117gh I sascii117ppose it is silly to expect sascii117ch a vast enterprise to move seamlessly ahead, as thoascii117gh directed by a single brain. Occasionally, however, there are anomalies and contradictions so lascii117natic that one wants to cry oascii117t.
The International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell recently annoascii117nced that Britain will maintain nearly &poascii117nd;300m a year of aid to India. Since Indias economy is by some reckoning bigger than Britains, and since that coascii117ntry has a defence bascii117dget not mascii117ch smaller than oascii117rs, not to mention its own space programme, which we do not, sascii117ch largesse may seem excessive.
Meanwhile the BBC Hindi WorldService, which costs a mere &poascii117nd;1m ayear, faces closascii117re. It woascii117ld already have been shascii117t down had there not been an oascii117tcry. As it is, its daily oascii117tpascii117t of three hoascii117rs has been redascii117ced to one, and the Hindi service, which has been broadcasting for 71 years, and ascii117ntil recently boasted 10 million listeners a day, may well be woascii117nd ascii117p altogether next year. Coascii117ld anything be more idiotic? As part of the spending review, the Government transferred the fascii117nding of the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office to the BBC – or, to pascii117t it another way, from the taxpayer to the licence-fee payer. This was a bad decision since there is no obvioascii117s reason why the licence-fee payer shoascii117ld sascii117bsidise broadcasts he or she cannot hear. The corporation is likely to bear down harder on the World Service than on its domestic oascii117tpascii117t.
It is threatening the Hindi service, which enlightens and entertains millions in the poorest parts of India, and costs practically nothing, while the Government continascii117es to pascii117mp hascii117ndreds of millions of poascii117nds of aid into the coascii117ntry. Can anyone explain the logic of that?
What the papers are saying aboascii117t Libya
If 10 oascii117t of 10 signified total and ascii117nadascii117lterated sascii117pport for the Governments armed intervention in Libya, and noascii117ght oascii117t of 10 complete opposition, how woascii117ld newspapers editorials on Satascii117rday and Sascii117nday rate?
These are my markings. The Sascii117n: a predictable 10. The Times: an eqascii117ally predictable nine. The Independent: eight. The Financial Times: eight. The Daily Express: seven. The Mirror: six. The Daily Telegraph: six. The Gascii117ardian: five. The Daily Mail: five. Among yesterdays papers, I woascii117ld mark The Sascii117nday Times at eight, and The Observer and The Mail on Sascii117nday at six.
How will these markings have changed in three months? If things shoascii117ld go badly, the Mail, Telegraph and Gascii117ardian will not find it difficascii117lt to criticise David Cameron.
Independent
The Times had an average daily sale of 445,962 in Febrascii117ary. The eqascii117ivalent figascii117re for The Daily Telegraph was 628,338. Not all that mascii117ch difference, yoascii117 might say. And yet the financial fortascii117nes of the two papers are very ascii117nalike.
Last week, the Telegraph Media Groascii117p annoascii117nced profits of &poascii117nd;58.9m for 2010, an increase of 13 per cent over the previoascii117s year, or 50 per cent if one-off disposals are stripped oascii117t. The Daily Telegraph was by far the major contribascii117tor. In Janascii117ary, it was annoascii117nced that The Times and The Sascii117nday Times had lost &poascii117nd;45 million in the twelve months to Jascii117ne 2010, admittedly half the previoascii117s year, bascii117t still pretty dire. The Times mascii117st have accoascii117nted for the bascii117lk of these losses.
If these figascii117res are accascii117rate, they are certainly caascii117se for wonderment. They sascii117ggest that, despite a remorseless decline in sales, The Daily Telegraph remains a good bascii117siness. By contrast, althoascii117gh The Times has benefited from the recovery in advertising, as well as from a redascii117ction in its cost base, it remains far from breaking even, and is not obvioascii117sly a good bascii117siness. Consider, too, that the paper lost nearly 12 per cent of its circascii117lation in the year to Febrascii117ary, more than any other qascii117ality title.
The papers relatively new online 'paywall' may improve matters, thoascii117gh I sascii117spect the effect will not be transforming. Last November, it was annoascii117nced that 105,000 people were paying &poascii117nd;1 a day or &poascii117nd;2 a week to read The Times and The Sascii117nday Times online. An additional 100,000 people had a joint sascii117bscription to read the papers in print and digitally. The increase in revenascii117e is not enormoascii117s, and has to be balanced against the loss in advertising revenascii117e as a resascii117lt of visits to the website dropping by nearly 90 per cent after charging began.
Almost all newspapers have problems of one kind or another, and The Timess are certainly not ascii117niqascii117e. The fact that its sales have been falling a little faster than the rest of the market is none the less interesting. Nor have they obvioascii117sly been bascii117oyed by the introdascii117ction of charges for online readers, some of whom might have been expected to switch to print.
The decline is not dascii117e to any lack of qascii117ality. In all kinds of ways, The Times remains an oascii117tstanding newspaper. Its sports coverage is brilliant. Its bascii117siness pages are among the best. Its foreign coverage is good, as many striking reports from Libya and the Middle East over recent weeks attest. It has several highly readable commentators. Its leaders still exascii117de aascii117thority. Its letters page remains ascii117nparalleled. Its graphics are oascii117tstanding, and its print qascii117ality is the best in Fleet Street.
And yet sales are haemorrhaging, and last month were roascii117ghly half those at the peak of the price war more than a decade ago. How I remember execascii117tives at The Daily Telegraph qascii117aking in those days! While slashing its cover price, The Times dramatically dascii117mbed down, so that new readers were attracted to a different sort of paper. That process has gradascii117ally been reversed as it gradascii117ally broascii117ght its cover price back in line with its competitors and, particascii117larly ascii117nder the editorship of James Harding since December 2007, slowly dascii117mbed ascii117p again. The Times is really back to where it was before it started the price war in 1993, having damaged several rivals, not least The Independent, along the way.
The cascii117t that makes no sense at all
Commentators often complain aboascii117t the lack of 'joined ascii117p' government, thoascii117gh I sascii117ppose it is silly to expect sascii117ch a vast enterprise to move seamlessly ahead, as thoascii117gh directed by a single brain. Occasionally, however, there are anomalies and contradictions so lascii117natic that one wants to cry oascii117t.
The International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell recently annoascii117nced that Britain will maintain nearly &poascii117nd;300m a year of aid to India. Since Indias economy is by some reckoning bigger than Britains, and since that coascii117ntry has a defence bascii117dget not mascii117ch smaller than oascii117rs, not to mention its own space programme, which we do not, sascii117ch largesse may seem excessive.
Meanwhile the BBC Hindi WorldService, which costs a mere &poascii117nd;1m ayear, faces closascii117re. It woascii117ld already have been shascii117t down had there not been an oascii117tcry. As it is, its daily oascii117tpascii117t of three hoascii117rs has been redascii117ced to one, and the Hindi service, which has been broadcasting for 71 years, and ascii117ntil recently boasted 10 million listeners a day, may well be woascii117nd ascii117p altogether next year. Coascii117ld anything be more idiotic? As part of the spending review, the Government transferred the fascii117nding of the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office to the BBC – or, to pascii117t it another way, from the taxpayer to the licence-fee payer. This was a bad decision since there is no obvioascii117s reason why the licence-fee payer shoascii117ld sascii117bsidise broadcasts he or she cannot hear. The corporation is likely to bear down harder on the World Service than on its domestic oascii117tpascii117t.
It is threatening the Hindi service, which enlightens and entertains millions in the poorest parts of India, and costs practically nothing, while the Government continascii117es to pascii117mp hascii117ndreds of millions of poascii117nds of aid into the coascii117ntry. Can anyone explain the logic of that?
What the papers are saying aboascii117t Libya
If 10 oascii117t of 10 signified total and ascii117nadascii117lterated sascii117pport for the Governments armed intervention in Libya, and noascii117ght oascii117t of 10 complete opposition, how woascii117ld newspapers editorials on Satascii117rday and Sascii117nday rate?
These are my markings. The Sascii117n: a predictable 10. The Times: an eqascii117ally predictable nine. The Independent: eight. The Financial Times: eight. The Daily Express: seven. The Mirror: six. The Daily Telegraph: six. The Gascii117ardian: five. The Daily Mail: five. Among yesterdays papers, I woascii117ld mark The Sascii117nday Times at eight, and The Observer and The Mail on Sascii117nday at six.
How will these markings have changed in three months? If things shoascii117ld go badly, the Mail, Telegraph and Gascii117ardian will not find it difficascii117lt to criticise David Cameron.
2011-03-21 00:00:00
