Metropol

Sput you have been told.

In my head I can imagine Gavin ending that with "I said good day".

Shush ison, shison.

I think £2 a week would be decent value if I regularly read the times, but of course I don't read it regularly so maybe I'm lying to myself. £1 a day seems odd - isn't that about the price of the actual paper? I'm sure they've done their sums very carefully but I'd have thought £50p a day is expensive enough to encourage regulars to opt for £2 a week instead of £3.50, but cheap enough to get casual readers in too.

£1 a day also seems expensive taking into account you're not getting the physical object with all the niceness that entails. I occasionally buy the Graun in print format and am willing to pay for that as you're getting all the design and proper layout and stuff. To pay the same for the content barfed out into a CMS seems rather bad value.

Isonstine wrote:Sput you have been told.

In my head I can imagine Gavin ending that with "I said good day".

Oh yes - from the film "Tootsie".

That's *exactly* how I said it.

Sput wrote:Shush ison, shison.

I think £2 a week would be decent value if I regularly read the times, but of course I don't read it regularly so maybe I'm lying to myself. £1 a day seems odd - isn't that about the price of the actual paper? I'm sure they've done their sums very carefully but I'd have thought £50p a day is expensive enough to encourage regulars to opt for £2 a week instead of £3.50, but cheap enough to get casual readers in too.

Why in jebus' name would I pay that kind of money to look at a website which is populated with ads?

Rather like Sky TV who charge massive premiums to watch their general entertainment channels, and fill them with adverts.

Are these organisations somehow related? I think we should be told.

Most people buy newspapers that are covered in ads.

And a TELEVISION and a NEWSPAPER company being related? INCONCEIVABLE. What HAVE you been smoking gav? you IDIOT.

I was once told at a local rag's office that it costs more to print the thing than the cover price, therefore the ads partly subsidise the paper in addition to raising money.

Sput wrote:What HAVE you been smoking gav?

I smoke cheroots.

What of it?

I'm a cigarillo man myself

Fine then, IGNORE MY POSTS.

Hymagumba wrote:Fine then, IGNORE MY POSTS.

Facts shmacts.

When were they ever relevant to newspapers?

Hymagumba wrote:I was once told at a local rag's office that it costs more to print the thing than the cover price, therefore the ads partly subsidise the paper in addition to raising money.

It certainly does. I know for a fact that the £1 cover price on The Guardian covers about 50% of the printing costs, with the rest being covered by adverts as you said.