43 ms·

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

841 points by gk1 9y ago

passwordqq 9y ago
Didn't guardian pedfle the same lie as other publications about Trump feeding fish? (and later update surreptitiously?)
JeanMarcS 9y ago
Does members having a tracker free access ? Because it seems fair that if you pay you are not in the "if it's free you're the product" anymore. It's important to move to this model.
- xxs 9y ago
  Well, how do you get tracker free if you are already logged in. Tracking user action on its own is not a sin as business should know what customers are interested in. Selling the data to 3rd parties (and organizing the entire operation to support) is the dirty gray area.
  - floatboth 9y ago
    Third party scripts is what everyone is talking about, yeah. Good example: MetaFilter does not show Google Ads to logged-in members.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  At least they promise an ad-free mobile experience. So there's a small chance they don't release the trackers on you. https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter?INTCMP=NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP&acquisitionData=%7B%22source%22%3A%22GUARDIAN_WEB%22%2C%22componentType%22%3A%22ACQUISITIONS_FOOTER%22%2C%22componentId%22%3A%22NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP%22%2C%22campaignCode%22%3A%22NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP%22%2C%22referrerPageviewId%22%3A%22jai8k626sk5jw4kumoau%22%2C%22referrerUrl%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Finternational%22%7D https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter?INTCMP=NGW_F...
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  If you want tracker-free, just install the relevant blockers; you shouldn't have to pay to have those removed if you don't want them, and likewise / on the other hand, the Guardian will want to gather usage statistics from unsubscribed and subscribed parties both. So if you care about trackers, enable do-not-track and set up your tracker blocker.
- untog 9y ago
  It would be difficult to implement a membership model that doesn't have some tracking of whether you are a member or not. Exemption from third party trackers I totally agree with though.
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    I think that could be done with anonymous tokens, like PrivacyPass.
amriksohata 9y ago
The physcology behind this is more political than business, the guardian is a lefty newspaper and is getting political support
- radmuzom 9y ago
  While this comment is down-voted, it is not necessarily wrong. As an Indian, I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President that I subscribed to multiple organizations which are considered left-wing by American conservatives or libertarians. These include regular fees to NY Times, Propublica and Guardian with occasional donations to various organizations in the United States.
  - netsharc 9y ago
    The danger is that "leftie" journalists hang out with leftie friends and they tell themselves "All my friends are voting Hillary/Remain, Trump/Brexit will lose". and then we lefties get shell-shocked the morning after. At least these papers are intellectually honest and admit mistakes, one trait of the right-wing, and their press, is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!".
    - gaius 9y ago
      is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!". Hardly - the NYT et al is yet to grasp the nettle and just admit that Hillary was a bad candidate. No Russians, no sexism, no conspiracies necessary.
  - floatboth 9y ago
    NY Times is far from "considered left-wing". It's currently heavily criticized for publishing terrible articles sympathizing with and humanizing literal neo-nazis.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters, they're actual living breathing people, and only by understanding that fact can we surmise their motivations and act against them.
f055 9y ago
This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequently, this eroded quality journalism, investigative, explanatory view of the world (and let's face it, TV could never replace that void, as they are solely relying on ads to survive). And then, a lot of bad things happened with peoples' opinions and understanding. I am glad many outlets are now seeing the correct path. The best news source in Poland nowadays is a wealthy, but niche, "Dziennik Gazeta Prawna" ("Daily Law Newspaper") with great, balanced content on serious issues - that relies mostly on subscribers. The best English periodical I have found is Foreign Affairs, also a very subscriber-focused outlet. Note that both of these seem to offer much better content in their paper issues than online.
- ghaff 9y ago
  My understanding is that paid subscribers (and newsstand sales) largely went into paying for printing and distribution while ads paid for basically everything else. Therefore, I expect that part of the thinking was that ads by themselves could pay for digital content creation and delivery. It's also the case that most people assume that an outsized percentage of costs goes into the physical copy of things. At one point, this came up a lot when eBooks were getting big--though, in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. Finally, there just aren't that many pubs that can really command a viable subscription price online--or really any at all. That the WSJ, NYT, and apparently the Guardian can isn't necessarily a recipe for a broader subscription model.
  - asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
    > in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. By effectively you mean steadily declining sales as people return to printed books.
    - 9y ago
Theodores 9y ago
I thought the begging letter was shown just because I had an ad blocker on. The site works well for the ad blocking crowd, maybe they make it so deliberately, so at least they can send you the begging message.
- calcifer 9y ago
  > begging letter > begging message I keep seeing this in many online spaces and for the life of me, I just can't understand how asking for money in exchange for value (journalism in this case) is considered begging. Seriously, this [1] is their ask, can you (or anyone else) show me exactly which part of it is begging? [1] http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg
  - throwawayyx96 9y ago
    It's not so much the message as its persistence, timing and size. It shows up every time and takes up half the screen. It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. Feels like one of those many many sites that immediately ask you to fill out a feedback form before you've even browsed anything. If it's not a beg, it's most certainly a nag.
    - calcifer 9y ago
      > its persistence, timing and size. > It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. What do you mean ? It's an inline box that always appears after the article. It's not a popup, it doesn't hinder navigation, it doesn't even have position:fixed so you can just scroll by it if you want. I don't think they could be nicer about it if they tried.
      - throwawayyx96 9y ago
        You're mistaken. There are two separate messages - a popover that appears at the bottom of the screen every time you browse a page (whether it be the front page, an article, etc.) AND the more innocuous inline text at the end of every article that you mention.
losteverything 9y ago
People within the "journalism" ecosystem can support itself with creative and different financial remedies. They strongly believe in their cause and benefit to humanity. I would focus fundraising efforts to parties that economically rely on a free or paid press.
caoilte 9y ago
That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors. I would pay £5/month to the Guardian and be happy for them to take a 30% administrative cut if they ring fenced the rest for writers I want to support. The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. Only experimenting with democratisation of commissioning and hiring is going to break it out of the nepotist trap it has fallen into.
- zoul 9y ago
  > The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. What makes you say that?
- calcifer 9y ago
  > The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. > nepotist trap it has fallen into. Would you care to elaborate on these a little bit? I'm a long time supporter of Guardian and this is the first time I've seen a nepotism complaint.
  - gadders 9y ago
    I guess it's Alan Rusbridger employing his wife and daughter: http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-guardians-rusbridger-mackie-family-are-looking-for-comment.html/ http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-gu...
    - calcifer 9y ago
      Nice find, thank you. If this is true, the Guardian should definitely address it. I'll probably write to them myself after investigating a bit.
    - 0898 9y ago
      OT: Are you the same gadders who used to hang out on the Popbitch board?
elorant 9y ago
The way I see it this model can only work for mediums with international readership. Say for example you have a newspaper in a small country with 10M people. Let's assume 5% of general population reads a newspaper and you have 5 major ones. That's roughly 100k readers per newspaper. Now how many of those could you convince to subscribe? Even if we assume an optimistic 10% that could hardly keep a newspaper afloat. You need readership in the millions to make this model viable, or a more loyal audience like the one Germans or Japanese have.
- DamnInteresting 9y ago
  > You need readership in the millions to make this model viable Not necessarily; for primarily online publications, operating costs rise roughly linearly with readership. I operate a donor-supported publication with a much smaller readership than the Guardian, yet we have stayed afloat for years via donations because our costs are much lower. It's a model that can work for practically any size of publication.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Your publication cost are roughly linear; your content creation costs are more or less constant with an increase in number of readers. I would assume that your content creation costs are vastly lower than the Guardian's which is why you can get away with fewer readers. You wouldn't be able to produce content like the Guardian on your budget, though.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Then why would ad-supported work instead, under the same readers? If you can pay the bills with ads, but not your readers directly, you probably aren't providing enough value.
return0 9y ago
Imagine if browser vendors added some form of online payment directly into the browser (like , i don't know , bitcoin).
- r3bl 9y ago
  Try to convince every website owner ever to accept the same payment methods. Both Brave and Flattr are attempting the same, both have little to no success for that simple reason.
  - return0 9y ago
    To be fair those are not major browsers. Firefox would be an obvious experimental vehicle, and the choice of bitcoin would be the least objectionable payment method (of the alternatives).
- criddell 9y ago
  Really? You want your bitcoin wallet online?
  - mirimir 9y ago
    You can have many Bitcoin wallets. And yes, at least one online, to pay stuff from. But you don't keep substantial balances in them.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  Web Payments API is on the way.
peeters 9y ago
I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp their content with ads. But I think it's more that people want diversity. I'll happily support news outlets financially, but at $300/yr for Globe&Mail and $260/yr for NYTimes, etc, the cost is just ridiculous. I WANT to support good journalism, but I want to pay a set price and have it be divided by my actual consumption. If I subscribe to two newspapers my consumption doesn't double, so I don't want to pay double. The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article.
- calcifer 9y ago
  For me it's the other way around. I pay for the Guardian because I think they do important, much needed journalism in many areas - including ones I'm not personally interested in. I like the idea that my money helps pay for articles that wouldn't get funded if it depended on a popularity contest.
  - peeters 9y ago
    For some publications I might agree. But many of them have comedy, sports and pop culture sections that I think blur their focus. I don't feel the need to spend a single dollar on supporting that content, I'll find better elsewhere if I want it.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      You realise that one of the reasons for taking the observer was Clive James TV reviews like wise the Late Simon Hoggarts political diary in the Guardian.
- ethagnawl 9y ago
  > The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article. I think this is spot-on. My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge (a la Brave and its Basic Attention Token).
scandox 9y ago
I sometimes feel like there isn't much alternative to The Guardian - on the other hand the opinion pieces are often wearisome and at times the whole thing starts to feel like a parody of itself. It is as if, in becoming "worthy" of "support" it has to crank itself up to an insane degree...just as sugary drinks become more sugary over time to retain their core drinkers. This is especially noticeable when ludicrous lifestyle pieces sit cheek-by-jowl with slightly overwrought culture wars content. I can't find an example today so I'll make one up: - Is enjoying the movie Chinatown an act of molestation? - Why Colombian hemp chocolate makes for the best edible luggage I mean I both think Polanski should be in jail and that Colombia tourism should be encouraged...but this stuff isn't news.
- lclarkmichalek 9y ago
  What about the recent editorial condemning Taylor Swift: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu...
  - scandox 9y ago
    See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...
    - calcifer 9y ago
      I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?
nottorp 9y ago
Funny enough, the linked site praises the Guardian's approach then hits me with a popup to subscribe to their newsletter...
bazoiks 9y ago
Not that surprising. Guardian readers (Champaign socialists) have money, and would rather donate it to the propaganda outlet that pushes their agenda, than to random internet ads. Not sure what bearing this has on any other news site, or any other website though. Unless it happens to have the same sort of readership which is very unlikely.
Jedd 9y ago
As much as I enjoy the quality of journalism from them, claims of The Guardian struggling, or being without sin (in the context of throwing stones around tax avoidance, especially post-Panama & Paradise papers, and at the risk of being labelled a whatbouter) should be considered in context. That context is that they've got some pretty serious claims of tax avoidance in their not-too-distant past. The Spectator ran a story [1] the middle of last year on the subject, though they've clearly got some fiscal & political views that could best be described as orthogonal to the Guardian. The Independent ran their own story a few years earlier [2] that went into a bit more detail on the somewhat regrettable ratio of profits to domestic tax paid. [1] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm-makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-med...
- calcifer 9y ago
  The Guardian responded to various such claims over the years in quite a bit of detail [1]. A choice quote: > The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk". > When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Richard Murphy, the scourge of tax dodgers the world over, to cast his eye over GMG's accounts. > This is what he wrote: > "Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result. > The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested. > The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong." [1] https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/blogpost https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/...
edpichler 9y ago
Anyone knwos about more successful examples of this business model?
foobarbazetc 9y ago
I pay them because it’s the only news source I actually trust. Their live updating event pages are really great too. They don’t always get it right with tech articles (they pissed off Pinboard a while back — they fixed it eventually) but still a great source of international news.
- GunlogAlm 9y ago
  Their journalism generally is very good, certainly better than the majority of British newspapers and tabloids. Their opinion articles, however, range from decent to atrocious - I tend to ignore the 'Comment is Free' section now, unless I'm familiar with a piece's author.
squeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian - I'm sorry, is this a joke? Buzzfeed (yes, that Buzzfeed... well when they're not making one of their retarded videos and actually do some investigative journalism) has higher journalistic value than The Guardian.
lkrubner 9y ago
It is important to remember that The Guardian is overtly and proudly a paper of the Left. I signed up and started paying in late November of 2016 only because Trump had won the Presidency. If Trump had not won the Presidency, I doubt I would have ever given my money to The Guardian. It has been reported elsewhere that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood had very good years, in terms of fundraising. All of this is the anti-Trump effect. The success of The Guardian fits into that pattern.
0xbear 9y ago
I wish I could support individual journalists somehow. As things are today I’d be supporting the status quo where the owner has complete editorial control, and the audience has none. I’m 100% not interested in that. I also don’t really want to support the massive administrative apparatus and various other freeloaders which tend to dominate organizations once they grow past a certain size. Under the current set up a hard hitting journalist won’t get an extra dime.
b0rsuk 9y ago
I have a twisted idea to appeal to people's sense of charity: Each person that subscribes, sponsors "no ads" visit for a random stranger. The cookie could last for a day.
- Spivak 9y ago
  That's just subscriber sharing links. Lots of papers do this. There's a bit of a 'free-trial' mixed in there but the important bit is giving subscribers the ability to share links guilt-free.
OutOfBrain 9y ago
`
campuscodi 9y ago
LOL @ the type of journalism The Guardian promotes... I'd rather burn money than support a publication that published articles to support my country's corrupt politicians. God forbid law enforcement investigate them. The Guardian always has their back.
- JoeMalt 9y ago
  What country is this?
stillkicking 9y ago
Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The Guardian was one of the outlets boldly reporting the Snowden and Manning leaks? I member. Right now on their front page I can read how democracy is being undermined "by not distinguishing between fact and opinion". And you know what? They're right on this front. But they categorically refuse to point the fingers at all guilty parties, and instead stick to the targets that are politically opportune and which they are ideologically opposed to. e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, an effect that was presumably related to the millions her campaign pumped into Correct The Record, and which had a _huge_ effect in creating and calcifying the "right wing hate subreddits" they now hysterically complain about. e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). But when Russia is said to be _attempting_ this, it is presented as akin to cybernetic warfare. Well in that case, America has been fighting WW3 under our noses, and they are equally reprehensible for doing so. Otherwise, this is simply how the game is being played, and all is fair in love and war. Which one is it? Because "muh russia" isn't a consistent stance on this. The response appears to be for suspiciously many people to start posting complaints about "whataboutism", in a spontaneous attempt at misdirection away from the hypocrisy. How curious.
- cantrip 9y ago
  I get your frustration but the answer is less money.
- funkythingss 9y ago
  I agree. Ever since Snowden they have been going to absolute horse shit. examples: https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com most recent example: basically calling Taylor swift a white supremacist for being silent on politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu... I can't take them seriously anymore, their editorial board has gone mad
BadassFractal 9y ago
I'd gladly pay for a publication that wasn't cranking out clickbait, outrage pieces and catering to their advertisers and their need to be associated with only politically correct partners.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Similarly, I'd pay for a publication that brought me news I was interested in and covered both sides of every debate, instead of obviously catering to one side or the other constantly. They'd have to cover each side well, obviously.
  - opportune 9y ago
    This is the problem with modern media IMO, each side presents their own side to their viewers in a logical matter-of-fact way (almost dismissively, though, of finer details) but only picks the most egregiously bad logic / moral failings of the other side to show to their supporters. So each side thinks the other is crazy because they only see the ~1-5% of the other side that gets paraded around for their idiocy. Even which pieces each side chooses to cover are completely different: it's almost like they're not even reporting on events occurring simultaneously much of the time. I only trust a very small number of publishers these days, such as the Atlantic and the Economist. Everything else is some sort of curated echo chamber
    - BadassFractal 9y ago
      Agreed. It would be great if news pieces would constantly steel man "the other side" instead of constantly pushing their readers towards one of the extremes by confirming all of their already held stereotypes.
    - marcosscriven 9y ago
      I think even The Economist can be one-sided. They don’t seem to be able to write about the leader of the Labour Party here without comparing him to Hugo Chavez. Not that I count myself pro-Corbyn, or even party-political. But it does seem one-sided in that respect at least.
d23 9y ago
I'd love to be able to microdonate to individual pieces of content on not just The Guardian but across the web.
- funkythingss 9y ago
  have you seen Flattr? Sounds like exactly that
GlennS 9y ago
I've been told that the paper newspaper has better content than the website.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  People always overplay the comment sections when they complain about the Guardian. In the physical paper comment makes up a handful of pages, but online because comment is free (to borrow a phrase) it can expand massively, and ad nauseam. They are silly, but the comment sections are also incidental to the rest of the newspaper. I hope that being supported by subscriptions also means that they can dial back the sensationalism. I want to support papers which aren't screaming in my face all the time, and which support a better society.
stabbles 9y ago
Can't be happier with this! Proof that people are willing to pay for quality. In The Netherlands we just got news that public service television etc sees an unexpected drop of income through ads (they're 60 mln euros short on budget in 2019). The quality of the online public news service is declining (clickbait titles for instance). Hopefully The Guardian sets an example!
- GuB-42 9y ago
  Quality? If the Guardian is considered quality journalism, the others are probably not worth the paper they are not printed on. Most links to the guardian I see are opinion pieces clearly made with a certain audience in mind. It is an echo chamber: people pay to read what they want to read. Does quality journalism exist at all? The only exception seems to be technical subjects, like science and engineering. And that's because there is a huge amount of effort being made to avoid bias at every level. And even that tends to be thrown out of the window as soon as it hits a popular journal. Where are the journals where fact are analyzed from several point of views. Take net neutrality for instance, where are the articles that really talks about the pros and cons? My opinion is that net neutrality is a good thing, I don't need a paper telling me what I am already convinced of. No, I want a paper to first explain me what net neutrality really is, and what are the drawbacks and how it compares to the positive aspects. It may not change my mind but at least I will be more informed.
vonnik 9y ago
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo recently wrote about the crisis in online journalism and its ad-based model. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-a-digital-media-crash-but-no-one-will-say-it http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-a-digital-media-c... Basically, advertisers are asking/paying for more video content, but readers/viewers don't actually want it, which is a disaster waiting to happen. Also, the market is flooded with VC-backed publications (Buzzfeed, Axios, ...) dumping free content on readers in an attempt to achieve scale, and those publications are also failing to hit their targets. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/buzzfeed-ipo-stymied-as-revenue-misses-target-dj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/buzzfeed-ipo-stymied-as-reve... It's hard to compete against free...
jimnotgym 9y ago
A quick review of UK print media 1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber. 2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too. 3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billionaire brothers who live in a castle on an island like particularly boring bond villains. 4) The Express - "Princes Diana wanted Brexit". Owned by billionaire Richard "not a pornographer" Desmond 5) The Sun - Rupert Murdoch's gutter mouthpiece 6) The News of the World - Rupert's other paper that had to close because they hacked the voice mail of a girl who was murdered, and therefore delayed the police investigation. 7) The Mirror - low grade leftism, but mostly celeb gossip 8) The Financial Times - Pretty good journalism and then pages of bond prices etc 9) The Independent. No longer in print. Billionaire Arab and Russian owners edit: from comments there is a number 10 10) The i - a lower case Independent. Thinner, cheaper and still in print. This main use for the i seems to be to leave it on train seats when the Metro (a free paper they give out in railway stations) is just too cheap. The journalism seems OK. Owned by establishment media PLC So if you didn't want Brexit, think immigration is helping demographics, think Princess Di should be laid to rest now and don't think the world is full of benefit scroungers, there is only the Guardian left. edit: formatting and a sad inability to list numbers
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nicky0 9y ago
  You missed the i.
- jraines 9y ago
  Well, if we're doing quick parody headlines as stand-ins, it's actually impossible to out-Guardian the Guardian: "I dread the day my daughter's poos get smaller" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/dread-daughter-poos-smaller-girl-conform https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/dread-... "Tea is a national disgrace" "Robots are racist and sexist, just like the people who created them" In any case, good on them for proving out this revenue model, hopefully it's sustainable and we see gigantic yellow-orange beg-boxes on more online media (seriously)
asinno 9y ago
relevant https://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking https://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking
rootusrootus 9y ago
I have reached the point where I think that if a respectable news organization went subscription-only (i.e. no ads, no clickbait, no free content at all), I'd jump on board. I want to be the customer.
mirimir 9y ago
I would be happy to support The Guardian etc. But this persona does not have credit/debit cards. So I have no way to pay them. I do support GnuPG and Riseup, however, because they accept Bitcoin.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  The digital equivalent of a postal money order would be nice to have.
- peterburkimsher 9y ago
  I think that asking paywalled sites to support Bitcoin is a good way to stop them from posting provocative articles and could calm down the crazy speculative market. I'd like Bitcoin to find its niche in payments for intellectual property.
lars_francke 9y ago
I have been on the Guardian support pages for at least a dozen times and I'd love to contribute but I don't find they make it easy. There's a subscription for 14,99€/month (https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int) then there's the premium app which is also called subscription (https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1 https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1) for 2,49 or so and then there's the Support thing (https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter) for 4,99€/month. Some of these seem to include the other options...but I'm not sure. So I've just always given up. In addition Guardian Weekly doesn't seem to have a digital only version? I've really tried. And I've also tried contacting their support but instead of answering my question they've canceled my subscription to Guardian Weekly. That was when I've just given up.
- jimsmart 9y ago
  In the UK we are given the option for a one-off contribution. It's quite an oversight if they're not offering that outside of the UK. https://support.theguardian.com/uk https://support.theguardian.com/uk
jchavannes 9y ago
Thought I'd mention yours.org [1] which has multiple ways of monetizing content. With micropayments it's much more feasible to support this type of model. See their FAQ for more info [2]. [1] https://www.yours.org/ https://www.yours.org/ [2] https://www.yours.org/faq/ https://www.yours.org/faq/
vvpan 9y ago
Part of getting people to pay you is - how easy it is to pay. One of the things I think are exciting is that projects like MetaMask basically integrate cryptocurrencies into your browser, making transaction very easy, safe (as safe as crypto at least) and anonymous, no matter if the entities participating in the transaction are in Yemen or London.
rebyn 9y ago
I’m one of these new subscribers (from Viet Nam) that this campaign appeals to. The offer was too good to ignore ($1 for first 6 weeks, $4 each week after for the Guardian Weekly). There’s a bit of adjustment from my side because stories and writings in the print edition are different from my usually top-HN, popular-Twitter articles, but I’ve grown to it. Local expats in my place have no idea of this free int’l delivery, so for a long time they have been paying local importers/newstands a heft ton of money for these papers.
zerostar07 9y ago
Guardian is too opinionated to say that this is a good thing. Its contributors are more often "feeding their bubble" rather than supporting independent journalism. You can see that their quality has gone down rather than up during this time.
amelius 9y ago
One problem is that a big part of their ad revenue is going overseas. The reason that most news sites can't run their own ads is that Google and co. are so incredibly good at tracking us, providing more value per ad.
thomaswang 9y ago
Will this be the future of online publishing? This is Medium's entire business model.

841 points by gk1 9y ago

Didn't guardian pedfle the same lie as other publications about Trump feeding fish? (and later update surreptitiously?)

Does members having a tracker free access ? Because it seems fair that if you pay you are not in the "if it's free you're the product" anymore. It's important to move to this model.

xxs 9y ago
Well, how do you get tracker free if you are already logged in. Tracking user action on its own is not a sin as business should know what customers are interested in. Selling the data to 3rd parties (and organizing the entire operation to support) is the dirty gray area.
- floatboth 9y ago
  Third party scripts is what everyone is talking about, yeah. Good example: MetaFilter does not show Google Ads to logged-in members.
cJ0th 9y ago
At least they promise an ad-free mobile experience. So there's a small chance they don't release the trackers on you. https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter?INTCMP=NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP&acquisitionData=%7B%22source%22%3A%22GUARDIAN_WEB%22%2C%22componentType%22%3A%22ACQUISITIONS_FOOTER%22%2C%22componentId%22%3A%22NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP%22%2C%22campaignCode%22%3A%22NGW_FOOTER_INT_GU_MEMBERSHIP%22%2C%22referrerPageviewId%22%3A%22jai8k626sk5jw4kumoau%22%2C%22referrerUrl%22%3A%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Finternational%22%7D https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter?INTCMP=NGW_F...
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
If you want tracker-free, just install the relevant blockers; you shouldn't have to pay to have those removed if you don't want them, and likewise / on the other hand, the Guardian will want to gather usage statistics from unsubscribed and subscribed parties both. So if you care about trackers, enable do-not-track and set up your tracker blocker.
untog 9y ago
It would be difficult to implement a membership model that doesn't have some tracking of whether you are a member or not. Exemption from third party trackers I totally agree with though.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  I think that could be done with anonymous tokens, like PrivacyPass.

amriksohata 9y ago

The physcology behind this is more political than business, the guardian is a lefty newspaper and is getting political support

radmuzom 9y ago
While this comment is down-voted, it is not necessarily wrong. As an Indian, I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President that I subscribed to multiple organizations which are considered left-wing by American conservatives or libertarians. These include regular fees to NY Times, Propublica and Guardian with occasional donations to various organizations in the United States.
- netsharc 9y ago
  The danger is that "leftie" journalists hang out with leftie friends and they tell themselves "All my friends are voting Hillary/Remain, Trump/Brexit will lose". and then we lefties get shell-shocked the morning after. At least these papers are intellectually honest and admit mistakes, one trait of the right-wing, and their press, is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!".
  - gaius 9y ago
    is the metaphorical putting fingers in ears and going "La-la-lala!". Hardly - the NYT et al is yet to grasp the nettle and just admit that Hillary was a bad candidate. No Russians, no sexism, no conspiracies necessary.
- floatboth 9y ago
  NY Times is far from "considered left-wing". It's currently heavily criticized for publishing terrible articles sympathizing with and humanizing literal neo-nazis.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters, they're actual living breathing people, and only by understanding that fact can we surmise their motivations and act against them.

f055 9y ago

This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequently, this eroded quality journalism, investigative, explanatory view of the world (and let's face it, TV could never replace that void, as they are solely relying on ads to survive). And then, a lot of bad things happened with peoples' opinions and understanding. I am glad many outlets are now seeing the correct path. The best news source in Poland nowadays is a wealthy, but niche, "Dziennik Gazeta Prawna" ("Daily Law Newspaper") with great, balanced content on serious issues - that relies mostly on subscribers. The best English periodical I have found is Foreign Affairs, also a very subscriber-focused outlet. Note that both of these seem to offer much better content in their paper issues than online.

ghaff 9y ago
My understanding is that paid subscribers (and newsstand sales) largely went into paying for printing and distribution while ads paid for basically everything else. Therefore, I expect that part of the thinking was that ads by themselves could pay for digital content creation and delivery. It's also the case that most people assume that an outsized percentage of costs goes into the physical copy of things. At one point, this came up a lot when eBooks were getting big--though, in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. Finally, there just aren't that many pubs that can really command a viable subscription price online--or really any at all. That the WSJ, NYT, and apparently the Guardian can isn't necessarily a recipe for a broader subscription model.
- asfdsfggtfd 9y ago
  > in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. By effectively you mean steadily declining sales as people return to printed books.
  - 9y ago

Theodores 9y ago

I thought the begging letter was shown just because I had an ad blocker on. The site works well for the ad blocking crowd, maybe they make it so deliberately, so at least they can send you the begging message.

calcifer 9y ago
> begging letter > begging message I keep seeing this in many online spaces and for the life of me, I just can't understand how asking for money in exchange for value (journalism in this case) is considered begging. Seriously, this [1] is their ask, can you (or anyone else) show me exactly which part of it is begging? [1] http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg
- throwawayyx96 9y ago
  It's not so much the message as its persistence, timing and size. It shows up every time and takes up half the screen. It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. Feels like one of those many many sites that immediately ask you to fill out a feedback form before you've even browsed anything. If it's not a beg, it's most certainly a nag.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    > its persistence, timing and size. > It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. What do you mean ? It's an inline box that always appears after the article. It's not a popup, it doesn't hinder navigation, it doesn't even have position:fixed so you can just scroll by it if you want. I don't think they could be nicer about it if they tried.
    - throwawayyx96 9y ago
      You're mistaken. There are two separate messages - a popover that appears at the bottom of the screen every time you browse a page (whether it be the front page, an article, etc.) AND the more innocuous inline text at the end of every article that you mention.

losteverything 9y ago

People within the "journalism" ecosystem can support itself with creative and different financial remedies. They strongly believe in their cause and benefit to humanity. I would focus fundraising efforts to parties that economically rely on a free or paid press.

caoilte 9y ago

That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors. I would pay £5/month to the Guardian and be happy for them to take a 30% administrative cut if they ring fenced the rest for writers I want to support. The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. Only experimenting with democratisation of commissioning and hiring is going to break it out of the nepotist trap it has fallen into.

zoul 9y ago
> The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. What makes you say that?
calcifer 9y ago
> The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. > nepotist trap it has fallen into. Would you care to elaborate on these a little bit? I'm a long time supporter of Guardian and this is the first time I've seen a nepotism complaint.
- gadders 9y ago
  I guess it's Alan Rusbridger employing his wife and daughter: http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-guardians-rusbridger-mackie-family-are-looking-for-comment.html/ http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-gu...
  - calcifer 9y ago
    Nice find, thank you. If this is true, the Guardian should definitely address it. I'll probably write to them myself after investigating a bit.
  - 0898 9y ago
    OT: Are you the same gadders who used to hang out on the Popbitch board?

elorant 9y ago

The way I see it this model can only work for mediums with international readership. Say for example you have a newspaper in a small country with 10M people. Let's assume 5% of general population reads a newspaper and you have 5 major ones. That's roughly 100k readers per newspaper. Now how many of those could you convince to subscribe? Even if we assume an optimistic 10% that could hardly keep a newspaper afloat. You need readership in the millions to make this model viable, or a more loyal audience like the one Germans or Japanese have.

DamnInteresting 9y ago
> You need readership in the millions to make this model viable Not necessarily; for primarily online publications, operating costs rise roughly linearly with readership. I operate a donor-supported publication with a much smaller readership than the Guardian, yet we have stayed afloat for years via donations because our costs are much lower. It's a model that can work for practically any size of publication.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Your publication cost are roughly linear; your content creation costs are more or less constant with an increase in number of readers. I would assume that your content creation costs are vastly lower than the Guardian's which is why you can get away with fewer readers. You wouldn't be able to produce content like the Guardian on your budget, though.
wccrawford 9y ago
Then why would ad-supported work instead, under the same readers? If you can pay the bills with ads, but not your readers directly, you probably aren't providing enough value.

return0 9y ago

Imagine if browser vendors added some form of online payment directly into the browser (like , i don't know , bitcoin).

r3bl 9y ago
Try to convince every website owner ever to accept the same payment methods. Both Brave and Flattr are attempting the same, both have little to no success for that simple reason.
- return0 9y ago
  To be fair those are not major browsers. Firefox would be an obvious experimental vehicle, and the choice of bitcoin would be the least objectionable payment method (of the alternatives).
criddell 9y ago
Really? You want your bitcoin wallet online?
- mirimir 9y ago
  You can have many Bitcoin wallets. And yes, at least one online, to pay stuff from. But you don't keep substantial balances in them.
Brakenshire 9y ago
Web Payments API is on the way.

peeters 9y ago

I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp their content with ads. But I think it's more that people want diversity. I'll happily support news outlets financially, but at $300/yr for Globe&Mail and $260/yr for NYTimes, etc, the cost is just ridiculous. I WANT to support good journalism, but I want to pay a set price and have it be divided by my actual consumption. If I subscribe to two newspapers my consumption doesn't double, so I don't want to pay double. The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article.

calcifer 9y ago
For me it's the other way around. I pay for the Guardian because I think they do important, much needed journalism in many areas - including ones I'm not personally interested in. I like the idea that my money helps pay for articles that wouldn't get funded if it depended on a popularity contest.
- peeters 9y ago
  For some publications I might agree. But many of them have comedy, sports and pop culture sections that I think blur their focus. I don't feel the need to spend a single dollar on supporting that content, I'll find better elsewhere if I want it.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    You realise that one of the reasons for taking the observer was Clive James TV reviews like wise the Late Simon Hoggarts political diary in the Guardian.
ethagnawl 9y ago
> The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article. I think this is spot-on. My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge (a la Brave and its Basic Attention Token).

scandox 9y ago

I sometimes feel like there isn't much alternative to The Guardian - on the other hand the opinion pieces are often wearisome and at times the whole thing starts to feel like a parody of itself. It is as if, in becoming "worthy" of "support" it has to crank itself up to an insane degree...just as sugary drinks become more sugary over time to retain their core drinkers. This is especially noticeable when ludicrous lifestyle pieces sit cheek-by-jowl with slightly overwrought culture wars content. I can't find an example today so I'll make one up: - Is enjoying the movie Chinatown an act of molestation? - Why Colombian hemp chocolate makes for the best edible luggage I mean I both think Polanski should be in jail and that Colombia tourism should be encouraged...but this stuff isn't news.

lclarkmichalek 9y ago
What about the recent editorial condemning Taylor Swift: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu...
- scandox 9y ago
  See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...
  - calcifer 9y ago
    I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?

nottorp 9y ago

Funny enough, the linked site praises the Guardian's approach then hits me with a popup to subscribe to their newsletter...

bazoiks 9y ago

Not that surprising. Guardian readers (Champaign socialists) have money, and would rather donate it to the propaganda outlet that pushes their agenda, than to random internet ads. Not sure what bearing this has on any other news site, or any other website though. Unless it happens to have the same sort of readership which is very unlikely.

Jedd 9y ago

As much as I enjoy the quality of journalism from them, claims of The Guardian struggling, or being without sin (in the context of throwing stones around tax avoidance, especially post-Panama & Paradise papers, and at the risk of being labelled a whatbouter) should be considered in context. That context is that they've got some pretty serious claims of tax avoidance in their not-too-distant past. The Spectator ran a story [1] the middle of last year on the subject, though they've clearly got some fiscal & political views that could best be described as orthogonal to the Guardian. The Independent ran their own story a few years earlier [2] that went into a bit more detail on the somewhat regrettable ratio of profits to domestic tax paid. [1] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/ https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-... [2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm-makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-med...

calcifer 9y ago
The Guardian responded to various such claims over the years in quite a bit of detail [1]. A choice quote: > The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk". > When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Richard Murphy, the scourge of tax dodgers the world over, to cast his eye over GMG's accounts. > This is what he wrote: > "Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result. > The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested. > The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong." [1] https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/blogpost https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/...

edpichler 9y ago

Anyone knwos about more successful examples of this business model?

foobarbazetc 9y ago

I pay them because it’s the only news source I actually trust. Their live updating event pages are really great too. They don’t always get it right with tech articles (they pissed off Pinboard a while back — they fixed it eventually) but still a great source of international news.

GunlogAlm 9y ago
Their journalism generally is very good, certainly better than the majority of British newspapers and tabloids. Their opinion articles, however, range from decent to atrocious - I tend to ignore the 'Comment is Free' section now, unless I'm familiar with a piece's author.

squeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian - I'm sorry, is this a joke? Buzzfeed (yes, that Buzzfeed... well when they're not making one of their retarded videos and actually do some investigative journalism) has higher journalistic value than The Guardian.

lkrubner 9y ago

It is important to remember that The Guardian is overtly and proudly a paper of the Left. I signed up and started paying in late November of 2016 only because Trump had won the Presidency. If Trump had not won the Presidency, I doubt I would have ever given my money to The Guardian. It has been reported elsewhere that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood had very good years, in terms of fundraising. All of this is the anti-Trump effect. The success of The Guardian fits into that pattern.

0xbear 9y ago

I wish I could support individual journalists somehow. As things are today I’d be supporting the status quo where the owner has complete editorial control, and the audience has none. I’m 100% not interested in that. I also don’t really want to support the massive administrative apparatus and various other freeloaders which tend to dominate organizations once they grow past a certain size. Under the current set up a hard hitting journalist won’t get an extra dime.

b0rsuk 9y ago

I have a twisted idea to appeal to people's sense of charity: Each person that subscribes, sponsors "no ads" visit for a random stranger. The cookie could last for a day.

Spivak 9y ago
That's just subscriber sharing links. Lots of papers do this. There's a bit of a 'free-trial' mixed in there but the important bit is giving subscribers the ability to share links guilt-free.

OutOfBrain 9y ago

campuscodi 9y ago

LOL @ the type of journalism The Guardian promotes... I'd rather burn money than support a publication that published articles to support my country's corrupt politicians. God forbid law enforcement investigate them. The Guardian always has their back.

JoeMalt 9y ago
What country is this?

stillkicking 9y ago

Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The Guardian was one of the outlets boldly reporting the Snowden and Manning leaks? I member. Right now on their front page I can read how democracy is being undermined "by not distinguishing between fact and opinion". And you know what? They're right on this front. But they categorically refuse to point the fingers at all guilty parties, and instead stick to the targets that are politically opportune and which they are ideologically opposed to. e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, an effect that was presumably related to the millions her campaign pumped into Correct The Record, and which had a _huge_ effect in creating and calcifying the "right wing hate subreddits" they now hysterically complain about. e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). But when Russia is said to be _attempting_ this, it is presented as akin to cybernetic warfare. Well in that case, America has been fighting WW3 under our noses, and they are equally reprehensible for doing so. Otherwise, this is simply how the game is being played, and all is fair in love and war. Which one is it? Because "muh russia" isn't a consistent stance on this. The response appears to be for suspiciously many people to start posting complaints about "whataboutism", in a spontaneous attempt at misdirection away from the hypocrisy. How curious.

cantrip 9y ago
I get your frustration but the answer is less money.
funkythingss 9y ago
I agree. Ever since Snowden they have been going to absolute horse shit. examples: https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com most recent example: basically calling Taylor swift a white supremacist for being silent on politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu... I can't take them seriously anymore, their editorial board has gone mad

BadassFractal 9y ago

I'd gladly pay for a publication that wasn't cranking out clickbait, outrage pieces and catering to their advertisers and their need to be associated with only politically correct partners.

wccrawford 9y ago
Similarly, I'd pay for a publication that brought me news I was interested in and covered both sides of every debate, instead of obviously catering to one side or the other constantly. They'd have to cover each side well, obviously.
- opportune 9y ago
  This is the problem with modern media IMO, each side presents their own side to their viewers in a logical matter-of-fact way (almost dismissively, though, of finer details) but only picks the most egregiously bad logic / moral failings of the other side to show to their supporters. So each side thinks the other is crazy because they only see the ~1-5% of the other side that gets paraded around for their idiocy. Even which pieces each side chooses to cover are completely different: it's almost like they're not even reporting on events occurring simultaneously much of the time. I only trust a very small number of publishers these days, such as the Atlantic and the Economist. Everything else is some sort of curated echo chamber
  - BadassFractal 9y ago
    Agreed. It would be great if news pieces would constantly steel man "the other side" instead of constantly pushing their readers towards one of the extremes by confirming all of their already held stereotypes.
  - marcosscriven 9y ago
    I think even The Economist can be one-sided. They don’t seem to be able to write about the leader of the Labour Party here without comparing him to Hugo Chavez. Not that I count myself pro-Corbyn, or even party-political. But it does seem one-sided in that respect at least.

d23 9y ago

I'd love to be able to microdonate to individual pieces of content on not just The Guardian but across the web.

funkythingss 9y ago
have you seen Flattr? Sounds like exactly that

GlennS 9y ago

I've been told that the paper newspaper has better content than the website.

Brakenshire 9y ago
People always overplay the comment sections when they complain about the Guardian. In the physical paper comment makes up a handful of pages, but online because comment is free (to borrow a phrase) it can expand massively, and ad nauseam. They are silly, but the comment sections are also incidental to the rest of the newspaper. I hope that being supported by subscriptions also means that they can dial back the sensationalism. I want to support papers which aren't screaming in my face all the time, and which support a better society.

stabbles 9y ago

Can't be happier with this! Proof that people are willing to pay for quality. In The Netherlands we just got news that public service television etc sees an unexpected drop of income through ads (they're 60 mln euros short on budget in 2019). The quality of the online public news service is declining (clickbait titles for instance). Hopefully The Guardian sets an example!

GuB-42 9y ago
Quality? If the Guardian is considered quality journalism, the others are probably not worth the paper they are not printed on. Most links to the guardian I see are opinion pieces clearly made with a certain audience in mind. It is an echo chamber: people pay to read what they want to read. Does quality journalism exist at all? The only exception seems to be technical subjects, like science and engineering. And that's because there is a huge amount of effort being made to avoid bias at every level. And even that tends to be thrown out of the window as soon as it hits a popular journal. Where are the journals where fact are analyzed from several point of views. Take net neutrality for instance, where are the articles that really talks about the pros and cons? My opinion is that net neutrality is a good thing, I don't need a paper telling me what I am already convinced of. No, I want a paper to first explain me what net neutrality really is, and what are the drawbacks and how it compares to the positive aspects. It may not change my mind but at least I will be more informed.

vonnik 9y ago

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo recently wrote about the crisis in online journalism and its ad-based model. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-a-digital-media-crash-but-no-one-will-say-it http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/theres-a-digital-media-c... Basically, advertisers are asking/paying for more video content, but readers/viewers don't actually want it, which is a disaster waiting to happen. Also, the market is flooded with VC-backed publications (Buzzfeed, Axios, ...) dumping free content on readers in an attempt to achieve scale, and those publications are also failing to hit their targets. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/buzzfeed-ipo-stymied-as-revenue-misses-target-dj.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/buzzfeed-ipo-stymied-as-reve... It's hard to compete against free...

jimnotgym 9y ago

A quick review of UK print media 1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber. 2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too. 3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billionaire brothers who live in a castle on an island like particularly boring bond villains. 4) The Express - "Princes Diana wanted Brexit". Owned by billionaire Richard "not a pornographer" Desmond 5) The Sun - Rupert Murdoch's gutter mouthpiece 6) The News of the World - Rupert's other paper that had to close because they hacked the voice mail of a girl who was murdered, and therefore delayed the police investigation. 7) The Mirror - low grade leftism, but mostly celeb gossip 8) The Financial Times - Pretty good journalism and then pages of bond prices etc 9) The Independent. No longer in print. Billionaire Arab and Russian owners edit: from comments there is a number 10 10) The i - a lower case Independent. Thinner, cheaper and still in print. This main use for the i seems to be to leave it on train seats when the Metro (a free paper they give out in railway stations) is just too cheap. The journalism seems OK. Owned by establishment media PLC So if you didn't want Brexit, think immigration is helping demographics, think Princess Di should be laid to rest now and don't think the world is full of benefit scroungers, there is only the Guardian left. edit: formatting and a sad inability to list numbers

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nicky0 9y ago
You missed the i.
jraines 9y ago
Well, if we're doing quick parody headlines as stand-ins, it's actually impossible to out-Guardian the Guardian: "I dread the day my daughter's poos get smaller" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/dread-daughter-poos-smaller-girl-conform https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/dread-... "Tea is a national disgrace" "Robots are racist and sexist, just like the people who created them" In any case, good on them for proving out this revenue model, hopefully it's sustainable and we see gigantic yellow-orange beg-boxes on more online media (seriously)

asinno 9y ago

relevant https://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking https://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking

rootusrootus 9y ago

I have reached the point where I think that if a respectable news organization went subscription-only (i.e. no ads, no clickbait, no free content at all), I'd jump on board. I want to be the customer.

mirimir 9y ago

I would be happy to support The Guardian etc. But this persona does not have credit/debit cards. So I have no way to pay them. I do support GnuPG and Riseup, however, because they accept Bitcoin.

dredmorbius 9y ago
The digital equivalent of a postal money order would be nice to have.
peterburkimsher 9y ago
I think that asking paywalled sites to support Bitcoin is a good way to stop them from posting provocative articles and could calm down the crazy speculative market. I'd like Bitcoin to find its niche in payments for intellectual property.

lars_francke 9y ago

I have been on the Guardian support pages for at least a dozen times and I'd love to contribute but I don't find they make it easy. There's a subscription for 14,99€/month (https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int https://subscribe.theguardian.com/p/DBQ80F?edition=int) then there's the premium app which is also called subscription (https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1 https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/aug/12/1) for 2,49 or so and then there's the Support thing (https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter https://membership.theguardian.com/eu/supporter) for 4,99€/month. Some of these seem to include the other options...but I'm not sure. So I've just always given up. In addition Guardian Weekly doesn't seem to have a digital only version? I've really tried. And I've also tried contacting their support but instead of answering my question they've canceled my subscription to Guardian Weekly. That was when I've just given up.

jimsmart 9y ago
In the UK we are given the option for a one-off contribution. It's quite an oversight if they're not offering that outside of the UK. https://support.theguardian.com/uk https://support.theguardian.com/uk

jchavannes 9y ago

Thought I'd mention yours.org [1] which has multiple ways of monetizing content. With micropayments it's much more feasible to support this type of model. See their FAQ for more info [2]. [1] https://www.yours.org/ https://www.yours.org/ [2] https://www.yours.org/faq/ https://www.yours.org/faq/

vvpan 9y ago

Part of getting people to pay you is - how easy it is to pay. One of the things I think are exciting is that projects like MetaMask basically integrate cryptocurrencies into your browser, making transaction very easy, safe (as safe as crypto at least) and anonymous, no matter if the entities participating in the transaction are in Yemen or London.

rebyn 9y ago

I’m one of these new subscribers (from Viet Nam) that this campaign appeals to. The offer was too good to ignore ($1 for first 6 weeks, $4 each week after for the Guardian Weekly). There’s a bit of adjustment from my side because stories and writings in the print edition are different from my usually top-HN, popular-Twitter articles, but I’ve grown to it. Local expats in my place have no idea of this free int’l delivery, so for a long time they have been paying local importers/newstands a heft ton of money for these papers.

zerostar07 9y ago

Guardian is too opinionated to say that this is a good thing. Its contributors are more often "feeding their bubble" rather than supporting independent journalism. You can see that their quality has gone down rather than up during this time.

amelius 9y ago

One problem is that a big part of their ad revenue is going overseas. The reason that most news sites can't run their own ads is that Google and co. are so incredibly good at tracking us, providing more value per ad.

thomaswang 9y ago

Will this be the future of online publishing? This is Medium's entire business model.