Guardian journos embrace traffic acquisition costs status

Like father like son. The guardian uk has been losing money for years so no real suprise the Australian version is doing the same. As long as The Scott Trust are bank rolling it, high traffic acquisition costs and snide comments from the oz don’t count for anything.

True @Fraser — the Guardian has always traded unprofitably, propped up by the Trust. But at least in the UK the losses are becoming smaller, whereas — if the Aus is to be believed — here in Australia, things are going in the other direction ie losses are getting greater. Just shows how hard it is for publishers to monetise digital audiences –even large digital audiences.

This spray from the loss-making Australian.

Or as Bolta pointed out recently:

Probably, if you got an honest figure out, [Mr Mitchell is] spending $20 million a year more on his paper than it actually earns. For that kind of subsidy from the rest of the empire which he disparages, he might actually have a more popular product,” Bolt told Steve Price during one of his paid spots on 2GB this week.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/.....ed-career/

‘losing’ or ‘investing’? It’s one thing to just lose money and not progress – another thing to spend within your means to evolve the business in terms of digital products, entering new markets and diversifying revenue streams. I’d say there’s an interesting comparison between The Guardian and The Australian. Both started as national broadsheets of their respective countries; now look at them. I know which one appears to have the better strategy. Looks like a lame attempt from The Oz to justify their model to shareholders.