The London Paper being canned?

graeme · August 2009

Rumors, well Popbitch, suggesting The London Paper is being closed down. Never read the papers, but friend works on it. Anyone know any more?

If not - which is your favourite of the free press, and why? And what happened to The London Line (came out about 3 years ago).

staplejack · August 2009

<a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/News/928324/News-International-set-close-thelondonpaper/">Consulting </a>for a month, but very <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/20/the-london-paper-close-plan">likely to close.</a>

NEWS INTERNATIONAL PROPOSES CLOSING THELONDONPAPER

Today, staff at thelondonpaper were told that we propose closing thelondonpaper.

This has been a tough decision but reflects News International's strategy of streamlining its operations and focusing resources on its core titles. We have begun a 30-day consultation with the staff and intend to continue publishing thelondonpaper through this period to the middle of September.

Since its launch, thelondonpaper has made great strides in a short space of time, surging ahead of the closest competitor almost immediately with its fresh approach and innovative design.

Despite the achievements of the team, the performance of the paper in a difficult free evening newspaper sector has fallen short of expectations. We have decided as a business to invest our resources in those parts of the business where we foresee strong growth potential.

We believe that our titles are well positioned for the future and we look forward to continuing to deliver the biggest and best audiences to all advertising clients.

Steddy · August 2009

There's an article in Private Eye about it.

Murdoch doesn't like anyone getting news for free, he wants to start charging to read the Sun and the Times online. All the more so seeing as advertising money has fallen. Rebekkah Wade, sorry Brooks, is being promoted in News Corp and hates the London Paper as it takes so much of the Sun's sales

injoke · August 2009

i'm sure we'll all miss the half dozen recycled AP stories, 4 pages of pictures of pissed celebrites and the grudging afterthought of a sports section. let's face it it's a piece of shit.

slats · August 2009

its better than the other one though, even if it is part of the Murdoch family..

David · August 2009

But London Lite and London Paper are almost identical. I find it impossible to rate one differently from the other. Same articles, same wording and many times even the same photographs. I think last year both papers were basically reporting on what Amy Winehouse did that day. That's an awful lot of trees and energy for something so banal.

bennyfromtheblok · August 2009

I won't miss having to dodge about 10 people trying to force me to take a paper when on the way to the tube.

slats · August 2009

@ David - in my eyes the london paper is streets ahead aesthetically, even if the content is the same old tripe

N4mality · August 2009

1 positive is there'll be less rubbish on the Tubes + More Trees will be breathing for that much longer

Marquis · August 2009

I like some of the columns, especially the clubbing and the gay/lesbo ones. Lite however has Get it off your txt, which is an absolute treasure, plus the TV reviews.
Still, happy trees are probably a better argument.

N4mality · August 2009

The free papers were certainly a great novelty when it first launched but after a while I started craving some proper journalism.

I hate to agree with Murdoch but I think he is right in trying to make readers pay at least a nominal amount in exchange for better news & articles.

His biggest obstacle is the BBC which is publicly funded, well presented and 1 of the most popular websites globally ...

ADGS · August 2009

I never expected to find myself cheering a Murdoch rag, but given it was breaking the stranglehold of the even-more-noxious Mail stable, I approved of The London Paper, at least in theory. Really didn't expect the flagrant spoiler Lite to outlast it, but now the Standard's been sold on then at least the situation's not as bad as it was before.

Marquis · August 2009

Edited.

bennyfromtheblok · August 2009

The Guardian website is the UK's most popular newspaper website which is run by a trust and not for profit. I don't think they would ever charge for access to their daily content.

Whilst Murdoch may think that you get what you pay for, it would be a bold move to start charging for the online services people are used to getting free. I'm sure they would lose market share and therefore online advertising revenue which I'm told is now as much as traditional print.

graeme · August 2009

Guardian website is making a loss (less revenue from ads this year, though they made profit last year I think).

As to being a charity, not being run for profit, I guess having GMG Hazel Acquisition 1 Limited, the corporate vehicle for Guardian Media Group, registered in the Caymans and saving them £600k corporation tax must help. Socialists? pfft.

rainbow_carnage · August 2009

I was under the impression that the Guardian Group is struggling. Aren't they talking about getting rid of the Observer? I wouldn't be surprised if they started charging for their online content. And why not? It's not like it magically appears on the site. Someone has to research/write/edit it. Why shouldn't we pay for it? At the very least, they should charge for the archives.

I hate the free afternoon papers, though I do read them. Of course, by "read" I mean browse the headlines and look at the pictures. The actual writing in unreadable. Where do they find these "journalists"?

If people genuinely valued thorough journalism and good writing, newspapers would cost more and no one would read the free rags. But since most people can't tell the difference, the better papers are struggling and millions are happy to get their news from London Lite.

graeme · August 2009

One journo I know on the London Paper came from quite high in the Evening Standard, don't read them so can't comment on kwality, but they can't all be new graduates.

People who want specific info will pay (e.g. the FT). A general rag is of little value to anyone except the advertisers therein, and to further stupify the masses. They need to find their niche. If totty and gossip is what you want, maybe the Sun *could* charge.

Guardian are training up their print journalists with video and podcast skillz so they can do dual content (write for the paper, produce clip for website). Seems like the overall quality would suffer as journos spread themselves thin. But anything to save on costs I suppose. Had also heard the Observer rumour.

yosh · August 2009

I quite like the London Paper - not necessarily for it's news but for highlighting what's happening around london from new and novel shows, events and other random stuff. Plus the cartoon strip EM is really funny :)

matt · August 2009

London Lite at a push, just so I don't get inky fingers

Alex · August 2009

I thought the London Paper was really good for what it was. It managed to be fresh and developed a different, positive voice, despite the mandatory celeb rubbish. I particularly liked their approach during the mayoral election, when they didn't take sides between Ken and Boris, but ran a huge campaign to increase awareness and turnout, including how and where to vote, etc. Mind you, with losses of £13m-odd on turnover of £26m or so, it makes sense to close it now (just after Associated have been forced to bid high for the [new TFL distribution contract](http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/11817.aspx)). Metro has apparently been making c.£8m yearly profits until now.

andy · August 2009

Another way of looking at it is that Rupert Murdoch has been paying £13m a year to litter every tube and bus and put a hostile hawker on every street corner in zone 1. Good riddance. London Lite next, please.

Marquis · August 2009

It seems to me that since 2006 there have been fewer chicken bones on train and bus floors though.

bennyfromtheblok · August 2009

I agree with Andy, it frustrates me so much to see people just dumping their papers on their seats when they are done with them. I get off at London Bridge where there are huge recycling bins outside and hardly anyone bothers to use them. Most people these days would not litter without a care in the world and I fail to see why they think it's OK to do it on the tube.
The way I see it, you are getting a free paper, the least you can do is dispose of it properly.

staplejack · August 2009

The more papers are recycled, the less there are left lying around for other commuters to pick up and slowly rot their braincells with.

What would Sisyphus do?

tosscat · August 2009

Push the rock up the hill? You could argue the toss, but I think you should have used 'fewer'.

ShaunG · August 2009

Don't think there's any toss to argue on that one - cut-and-dried "fewer". I'm with Andy, and am a bit surprised to see the degree of favourable (or even interested) opinion on the freesheets. I read them when I have to pick one off the seat to sit down, but the whole time I'm reading, I'm aware that I'm rotting my brain. The only bit I like is the sheer fascination how people can contribute to the ridiculous meeting up messages ("Guy with red hair on central line last Friday, I was the girl in a blue skirt with the loud friend. I smiled, but I don't think you noticed. You're gorgeous. Drink?"). I'd love to know if, in a city of several million, any connection was ever made in this way.

staplejack · August 2009

"I'd love to know if, in a city of several million, any connection was ever made in this way"

Darwin would roll in his grave if he thought about this for any length of time...

ShaunG · August 2009

Well, what I meant was, how often is a randomly selected stranger, extremely vaguely described following an encounter of which s/he was most likely unaware, likely to a) choose to read that particular column, on the correct day, b) correctly identify him/herself from the description, and c) feel inclined to respond to the anonymous person? And if it were possible to know what that success rate was, how likely would it be for someone to consider it worthwhile sending in their message? After he'd finished with his rolling, what exactly would Darwin have to say on the subject?

tosscat · August 2009

Maybe they're just not aimed at you.

David · August 2009

I always thought they were a bit made up, like the problems in [Dear Deidre](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/deidre/).

andy · August 2009

Darwin would say "Look over here, at these finches. I think there's something interesting about their beaks". You'd be there, trying to interest him in the statistical unlikelihood of pairings via poorly worded anonymous classified ads and all he'd be interested in were his finches.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

The London Paper being canned?

Comments