3 ms·
"the Graun has a near monopoly on public sector job ads, so is effectively State-subsidized." Cobblers. (And a lazy Conservative Party talking point to boot.)
by handelaar 17y ago
"the Graun has a near monopoly on public sector job ads, so is effectively State-subsidized."
Cobblers. (And a lazy Conservative Party talking point to boot.)
The TES and Times Higher have more education jobs, and local papers get a far higher local government spend in aggregate. And in the Guardian that's only Tuesdays and Wednesdays (having bought them before I can tell you that the Saturday job supplement is merely a repeat and I never paid more for it).
In fact the vast majority of advertised public sector jobs are not advertised in the Guardian. Under what bizarre definition of 'monopoly' would this fall?
- gaius 17y agoShow me a BBC ad in the Daily Mail, then.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- handelaar 17y agoRight after you show me any media job ad in the Daily Mail that's not for DMGT itself, sure.
- anamax 17y agoAre you claiming that the Daily Mail doesn't accept media ads except from itself? If a general circulation pub is willing to take govt ads but govt doesn't place them, it's fair to ask why.
- handelaar 17y agoNo, I'm saying nobody else in the media industry is prepared to buy them, and therefore the BBC is not remotely exceptional in this regard.
- gabrielroth 17y agoI don't know anything about the specifics of public advertising in the British newspaper market, but I will say that a substantial ad buy two days a week could be a significant subsidy to the paper as a whole. And how much you paid for the Saturday supplement is irrelevant: what matters is what the advertisers paid for that reprint.
- handelaar 17y agoSorry, I wasn't clear. In my experience, the advertisers don't pay for the reprint at all.