The costs for an on line newspaper are fixed in the short and medium term - bar a very small amount of customer support. Journalists, IT systems, building and support costs tend only to vary longer term.
For such an enterprise the key to profitability is maximising revenues which I think come from just two main sources:
- subscriptions where even a £39 pa fee is better than nothing
- on line advertising and data sales which are largely a function of online subscribers
- possibly plus syndication rights etc
A little like budget airlines - costs of operating a scheduled flight vary little (possibly airport fees etc) whether 1 or 200 folk are on the flight. The objective is to maximise revenue per flight - hence the sale of seats at very low prices with the goal of ensuring all are full.
There are another two sources of 'revenue' for the legacy 'print' media:
1. Providing government 'information', aka (IMHO) propaganda. Whilst this technically is 'advertising', this proved a huge boon for them during the pandemic, and yes, 'propped up' some, but more than covered the losses due to the effects of lockdown.
2. The other is de facto 'sponsorship' in return for 'directed editorial lines' on behalf of rich/powerful people, businesses and organisations that are NOT governments.
Again, in my view, an example of this was (prior to the pandemic) The Gates Foundation's money ($3.2M in the first round in 2017, according to their website, if I recall correctly) seemingly in return for the Telegraph setting its 'Global Health Security' section, which 'promotes' vaccines and, to many (myself included), the agenda of Gates himself, which to me isn't as philanthropic / ethical as he makes out (e.g. making a fortune through GAVI etc), especially as many Western nations' (UK included) pandemic policy (and supported by all 'mainstream political parties) was seemingly heavily influenced by such lobbying from Gates himself.
I would argue that both 1 & 2 are related as part of a co-ordinated campaign
I would note that the Gates Foundation has also effectively done a similar thing with The Guardian and many other major Western news outlets, some for a much longer period of time.
In my view, many (including the Telegraph) appear to have permanently and unquestioningly welcomed these 'revenue streams', which I believe is a big mistake. It was one of the (many) reasons why I decided to unsub back in 2020, as I too was offered a reduced subscription price, which I would've accepted, if the paper was still good quality / honourable.
I do understand that finding a decent quality news outlet that reports on a wide range of news is nigh on impossible these days (rather like the lack of 'department stores'), so won't rag (pun intended) on those still partaking in MSM print news, but I would add some words of caution, given the above:
Take what they produce with several pinches of salt. The legacy media (including TV) is dying (has been for 10, maybe 20 years now), and like the drowning man, will do almost anything to survive, including pulling you down in order to survive.
|
