Reports that the Nobserver might be closing

[policywonk]

here

Other papers are being less circumspect

I wouldn't miss it much (bought it yesterday after a long break and the only thing I really enjoyed in it was a tiny interview with Sally Phillips), but it would be a shame for one of the few left-of-centre stalwarts to disappear.

Oooh at Roger Alton (the mystery poster). The real RA gave a truly awful interview to the Media Guardian about a year ago - saying something like 'there isn't a story that couldn't be improved by the addition of a picture of a naked woman' or something. Idiot man. It was under him that the paper really went downhill IMO.

Cherry - they didn't get that far re. dissemination etc - it's just an idea I've hard kicked around. I don't know whether it's got off the ground yet. That's true about Google though - that is where some of the money from print advertising has gone - not all of it though.

Interesting stuff about the ST and the Obs. The telly supplement seems to have become reincorporated into the main paper now.

I would definitely miss the Obs, even Observer Woman, which I read from cover to cover, loathing it. OK, maybe I wouldn't miss that bit, but I like the main book and the review and even the business section.

How to make money from the internet versions? I think subscriptions would be the only way, but as many have pointed out who'd pay for stuff they could get free elsewhere? I suppose it depends on the strength of the (boak) brand. DH works for a paper that has a niche and the website has some subscription stuff that people seem willing to pay for.

Not sure how well it's working as DH is full of doom and gloom about the death of his industry.

The only thing I like about the Observer is Mariella Frostrup. Some weeks I buy it just to read her and stick the rest in the recycling. Since I moved out of London I have realised its complete irrelevance to the rest of the country and its arrogant assumption that nothing exists outside the captial (guilty of the same while living there but I'm not a 'national' newspaper).

Do you think the Observer is any worse for London-centricity than any of the other weekend papers? We usually buy the Times on Sat and Sun and they're equally bad for assuming everyone shares a particular metropolitan lifestyle....

Probably not - I just see the Observer more often than other weekend papers. The Indie's really bad for it too (although I've just thought - does the IoS exist any more? Just had a feeling it doesn't...)

Kathy, I do think that some papers are worse than others for their londoncentricity. The ST at least has a Scottish edition, so has a separate Ecosse section and more Scottish news in the main section. Though they still insist on including feckin A A Gill's drivel about London restaurants. Why on earth would anyone outside London be interested in a weekly London restaurant review? Stoooopid.

I haven't read the Observer for years now, and The Sat Guardian is just as bad for its London bias, I'm afraid. We at least have the choice of the Scottish press up here; though both the Herald adn the Hootsmon are in terrible trouble too.

I think subscriptions are the way forward. At least they would stop me from getting sucked into the vortex of the Daily Mail Showbiz pages.

This is really interesting to me. DH has just accepted a job at a national daily - he's going to be focused on trying to modify (or maybe even completely change) business model and relationship with readers to stabilise or even strengthen their business in face of death of the industry.

I guess part of the problem is that if you go to a mass subscription model then you are trading off maybe 10 (or more?) casual readers for one loyal reader, and that would hit circ figures and hence ad rates significantly so newspapers need to work out how to be profitable in other aspects of the business rather than relying on ad rates. 7 day titles, one set of staff rather than 2 etc. may be a necessary evil if a subs-based model is to work.

As an aside, I probably am leading the London middle-class life that the weekend papers seem to think 95% of their readership is, but their focus on this pisses me off too!

Do you think a paper like The Guardian has casual readers though? Most people who read it (myself included) would describe themselves as 'Guardian readers', and have been probably for much of their newspaper reading life. I don't think the Guardian goes for the one-off customer does it?

HQ, I too was leading the life you describe, and the paper's description of it irritated me as well!

Agree about how off-putting teh preachy carbon-footprint articles are every otehr week are. I went off it when it started getting all indignant about how "unfair" inheritance tax was (pre-housing crash, naturally )

And I don't like the Mariella Frostrup page - so waffly - "Get to the f*king point" Why is she an agony aunt? What are her qualifications for the role? I could do that job. And a lot more succintly.

I do wish Murdoch would hurry up and die though.

It's not so much loyalty to a paper per se, as I agree most readers are incredibly loyal to one paper, but more loyalty to the medium. I was thinking more of people like me. I consider myself to be a fairly loyal Guardianista, but consume it largely through the web. Would I subscribe if that was the only way I could get it? I probably would (esp now I have a vested interest in the survival of print media ;)), but others like me may just choose to get their news and comment elsewhere. And by that I mean Sky news rather than another newspaper.

I'm a casual paper reader. I'll buy the Times if I have enough time to walk across the railway bridge in the morning and on the weekend, I'll buy what catches my eye.

In terms of online editions, if I had to pay via subscription, I just wouldn't bother and I think a lot of people would feel the same way. Same with subscriptions for the written version.

Why would you pay if you can get all the news you want for free anyway?

Look what has happened to the Standard in the face of the free papers. That's what would happen to online versions if they made people pay for them I reckon.

If you are reliant on advertising, this is what happens. ITV suffer in the same way because it's impossible to compete against the BBC when a recession means advertising revenue goes downwards! I agree with the papers needing to think about other sources of revenue other than advertising but very hard that. Goodness knows where you look as there aren't any print based titles who rely on anything else!

Good point HQ. I love my printed Guardian but realistically don't have time to read it anymore so usually look at it online. They have started doing subscriptions though haven't they, even since they put the price up. But even that wasn't enough to get me to take one out.

It is really heartening to see the loads of you loathe the Obs Woman supplement.
That was the nail in the coffin for me, tbh.
We had a thread about the Woman supplement once and I think Moondog sent the link to the thread to the editor. Made no difference, obviously!!

We always had the Obs at home, I read it all through my teens and twenties and by the time I got to my 30s it was so utterly full of lifestyle crap that I gave up. It helped shape me and my concerns and then it turned to near-drivel with a little bit of journalism hidden somewhere within.

I will be really sorry to see it go, though.

Mariella F is (for me) part of the prob. She's a sleb, not a writer.

Here, for eg, is the final par of her piece about a luxy macrobiotic freebie in last Sunday's travel section:

'It is good to remember my grandmother's maxim that "what goes in must come out" - and to learn that how functionally it does so is apparently a lifestyle choice!'

The reference to bowel movements, the screamer, the slight air of incoherence... well, it's not very classy, is it.

Columnists like her are everywhere though. People whose sole job is to witter about the last thought they had in their head. Massive, massive part of the reason for why people like me (who WANT to support a print media) part with their cash less and less often.

Oh nooo, I like her agony column! She gives such sound advice. Don't read her other stuff and apparently her agony column is all written by other people but I don't care, I love it!

Lenin - been away, just catching up - mahoosive congrats on arrival of ds2. Glad to see you got your c/s and all was well .

Can't stomach it now, but nonetheless, I like to feel that there are a choice of papers/viewpoints. It has a holier-than-thou tinge to it (as does The Guardian, but I don't buy that now either - maybe it's me that's changed, I loved it in my twenties) - but has always had a nice, snappy design. Much prefer the Sunday Times though, Rupe notwithstanding.

at RogerAlton's description of MF's piece

ooh, look, Nicola Jeal (in charge of all the Obs mags incl problematic Woman) is off to the Times
Anyone who can will be getting out fast. If Nige goes, it's all over.