Search results matching tag 'Evening Standard'

Associated hits reset button as London Lite set to close

255762 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:25:00 GMT

Associated Newspaper's statement this afternoon that it is likely to close London Lite, hits the reset button for newspapers in the capital. We had three papers for almost three years and now we are back to square one.

With the Evening Standard going free earlier this month it was only a matter of time before London Lite was closed.

Associated says "it has entered a period of consultation over the future of London Lite, its free London evening title, which may result in closure".

I don't think there is any "may" about it. It is tough for the 36 staff, but the future of London Lite and its employees looks sealed to me.

Steve Auckland, managing director, Associated Newspapers Free Division says that "despite reaching a large audience with an excellent editorial format, we are concerned about the commercial viability in this highly competitive area".

I'm sure they have been concerned for sometime, but with theLondonpaper gone there is no reason for it to be.

I don't remember the last time we were here with the London Daily News versus the Evening Standard aided by the resurrected Evening News in 1987, but it looks like that in London, history repeats itself. That's twice within the last few decades we've had three London papers before reverting to one.

One thing is clear we will not (as they say) see their like again. This really is an end moment in the evening/afternoon paper market in this rapidly changing media landscape. There's obviously still lots happening in other areas of the free market with Shortlist (its women's magazine: Stylist - isn't that due any day now?), City AM and TFL issuing its tender for the Metro slot.

In such a busy and competitive market it is a surprise that they lasted as long as they did, but it was an interesting battle to observe.

The free paper was a great experiment and what is perhaps most interesting is that while both London Lite and thelondonpaper are gone, they have left us with a legacy of a free Evening Standard against a desire by the rest of the industry to charge for content.

That strikes me as fascinating. Particularly given the most recent ABC figures for newspapers in the US this week that show the dire state some are in.

I've read and heard a number of people talk about the future of the Evening Standard and how they see the logic and the long term viability of it as a free title. Time will tell, but oddly I miss it as a paid-for title. I've barely seen it since it went free when previously I could pop out to the news agent outside 174 Hammersmith Road and get my copy, but no more.

Follow me on Twitter

Buying the Independent? Or not

255762 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:45:00 GMT

Is the Independent being sold? There's something happening, what is it exactly? Independent News and Media Chief Executive Gavin O'Reilly has said today there have been no talks with Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev.

O'Reilly's comments follow yesterday's lunchtime story that Lebedev was in advanced talks about buying the paper.

Speaking today to a Dow Jones reporter at IN&M's annual general meeting O'Reilly said that he's received no offer for the group's UK titles and has had no discussions.

"The board hasn't received any offer whatsoever from Mr Lebedev. The press has got ahead of itself.

"I've had no discussions [with Lebedev]. The board has had no discussion."

It's an interesting turn of phrase -- the bit about "the press getting ahead of itself". It could simply be that there's no story, but it seems from the various reports I've read that there is something is going on.

Maybe it isn't a sale. Maybe only closer relations (so to speak). I still think anyone would be bonkers to buy The Independent outright. It makes no sense - even if you're a billionaire. The future is not bright for The Independent. It still remains a candidate for becoming an online-only title. I've written about this once (No independent future - merger, digital or bust) or twice (The end of print for The Independent?) before.

Oh yeah and while we're on the subject why would you buy The Independent when you have just taken on another money pit, the London Evening Standard. Twitter me that.

People usually answer this question by saying that a tie-up between Independent and the Evening Standard would save costs. I'm sure some would be saved.

But the Standard is a London Evening News paper and the Independent is an (under funded) national newspaper so just how many savings will there be for example on the editorial front? I think the answer is less than people think and more than you would care for.

There are also serious money issues to be solved; IN&M is struggling to complete a €200m (£170m) refinancing deal.

Funnily enough The Times says that Lebedev "is reluctant to take on 'all the liabilities', according to one source familiar with the discussions".

It also mentions issues about Lebedev's financial position after reports that he was temporarily unable to pay journalists on his Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, in May. He is said to have lost a great deal of cash in the downturn. However, he claims to be worth over $2bn – I guess you would if you want to hang onto the title "billionaire".

Billionaire is such a bold and evocative word and, clearly, Lebedev is a bold individual. He did not get where he is without taking risks and there is no doubt that if this talk turns out to be correct, proves to be more than media gossip, then this would certainly qualify as another bold roll.

Update: I see that Media Guardian is reporting that Daily Mail & General Trust is considering taking a stake in the Independent titles should they be acquired by Lebedev. It quotes senior industry sources saying that the Daily Mail owner could take a 25% stake in the combined business...which would also incorporate the Evening Standard that it just got rid off? Hmm, guess we'll know soon enough.

Follow me on Twitter

Who's paying the cost of the Standard's free giveaway?

2182355 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:00:00 GMT

If a dress cost less than a tenner you have to ask questions about who is being exploited along the chain to produce it so cheaply.

And as Primark found to its cost when Panaroma did a bit of digging into the retailer's sources, keeping track of your supply chain when there are numerous contractors and subcontractors involved is no easy task.

Which brings us to the Evening Standard and its latest giveaway. Today, the Standard has been handing out free rucksacks with the paper - at least it has from the street vendor at Hammersmith Broadway. Not great rucksacks. Not even as good as the free rucksacks you get when you join a gym, but logo-emblazoned rucksacks nonetheless.

Having shed 5% of its circulation since July, according to the latest ABCs, it may be in need of a few creative promotions to bolster sales, but would a little digging into where today's giveaway was sourced unearth any unbecoming headlines?

Newspapers are right to splash on exposés of exploited home and factory workers, slaving away to keep the profit margins of multinationals good and healthy.

And don't the majority of us feel some sense of guilt when we read such stories, recalling the cost of the cheap T-shirts littering our wardrobes with the nagging feeling that something had to give to get them on the shelves for such questionably low prices?

Editors would always like to think the strength of their editorial offering is enough to sell a newspaper without lavish promotions, although the realisation that it often isn't is also understood.

But throw an ethically sensitive product into the promotional mix - which admittedly is practically anything these days though products with stitched seams always makes me doubly nervous - and questions over a paper's ability to report objectively on such matters must also be raised.

You would think, and hope, that the Standard - all newspapers for that matter - asks the necessary questions prior to going ahead with promotions. And it would be nice to think that at the end of the chain of this particular giveaway are content, healthy workers paid a living wage for their endeavour. I wouldn't want to unfairly point the finger at the Standard. For all I know, the rucksacks cost a tenner each and were put together by a workers' cooperative in Slough.

I have put a couple of calls in and someone is trying to find out for me. Or perhaps someone from the Standard can respond below and put my mind at ease.

In the meantime, wear your rucksack with, erm, pride.

Thelondonpaper rumour mill

255762 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:12:00 GMT

Take a day off and you miss it. Thelondonpaper to close? It seems unlikely that the Murdochs would abandon the battle and close thelondonpaper, which like its rival London Lite is haemorrhaging piles of cash daily, but would they go for a merger?

Peter Preston in the Observer raised the idea of a merger harking back to when the Evening News and the Evening Standard merged decades earlier.

But while such a decision would make financial sense (thelondonpaper lost £16.5m in the first year of its operation) it would represent a huge loss of faith and essentially hand victory to Associated Newspapers and take the pressure off of the Evening Standard.

Thelondonpaper currently out distributes London Lite by almost 100,000 copies with its circulation of 500,000 and it really seems to show.

Some days I rarely see London Lite. It is not distributed outside my Tube station home (Baron's Court - just down the road from Associated HQ) and on the Tube itself it often looks like a sea of thelondonpaper. Although I am not sure why that is the case as there are usually two of each standing outside the bigger Hammersmith station.

It would be a shame if it did close or merge. Not only does it look better and fresher, but it would obviously lead to journalistic job losses.

That process has already started in a small way over at Associated as Press Gazette reported last week that the London Evening Standard and London Lite have merged their newsdesk operations, leading to the departure of London Lite news editor Michael Leese.

The changes mean Standard news editor Hugh Dougherty will now oversee the news editing of the Evening Standard and London Lite alongside his deputy Steve Vaughan.

It also means that London Lite is even more a shadow of the Evening Standard. You might ask if that really matters when it comes to a freebie evening read? I think it does.

A News International's response to the speculation of closure was to deny it outright and, in doing so, did point to its new shiny Hertfordshire printing plant that represents a £650m investment.

"We intend to build on the success of our market leading national titles and that of thelondonpaper in the years ahead."

Well it would say that, wouldn't it? But when you are making denials no one ever quite believes you, particularly if you have just closed your loss-making magazine division as James Murdoch did.

Many observers read that as a cue that he was willing to take tough decisions and that next on his list was to close the even bigger loss maker that is thelondonpaper.

But look at it another way, maybe he was making a tough call on what was not a core part of News International's business in News Magazines and sell women's weekly title Love it!, as the publisher prepares to dig in for the long-haul battle in the London freesheet market. Newspapers are after all its business.

Ill deserved victory for the Evening Standard

255762 — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:04:36 GMT

It's a shame that unlike New York, London only has one newspaper and as the election campaign for the London Mayor has shown, the city is poorer for it after the paper's non-stop browbeating and stream of negative Ken Livingstone stories as part of its campaign to help elect blonde Tory buffoon Boris Johnson as mayor.

It would have been a different result if London (as it should have) had another voice, but it doesn't and instead has to settle for the half-arsed pseudo-national the Evening Standard, which completely failed Londoners with its partisan election coverage.

The Evening Standard has long battled with Ken Livingstone and the animosity runs deep. Part of that was of the former Labour mayor's own making, in particularly the bust-up over the comments relating to anti-Semitic comments made to a Jewish reporter, Oliver Finegold, on the paper.

But that alone does not excuse the single-minded campaign run by the paper's editor Veronica Wadley and chief political hack Andrew Gilligan who claimed yesterday tried to claim in the Independent that it was not "the Standard wot won it for Boris.

"What the Standard can claim is this. Firstly, in the same way as Boris brought together an existing anti-Ken majority, our investigations into Lee Jasper and the missing millions crystallised many Londoners' existing doubts about Livingstone.

"Had our news stories been 'spurious', 'virulent' or "Tory campaigns" they would not have mattered. But they were factual and measured, thoroughly and transparently sourced, widely followed-up, had important real consequences, such as resignations and arrests, and have of course never, in any specific particular, been denied."

Gilligan is fooling no one. If you needed proof read his amusing line about while there was plenty to find on Livingstone the Standard found it hard to find stories about Boris.

"I was the first reporter to expose what became Johnson's single biggest campaign headache, his unrealistic Routemaster bus costings. Beyond that, we looked – quite hard – for other things, but as he hasn't been in power for the last eight years, there was little new to find."

With dwindling sales, the paper can ill afford to alienate so many readers, but that did not stop it as it helped to put the previously unelectable Boris into City Hall where he can quaff champagne and caviar and wonder what the hell he has got himself into.

The election campaign is undoubtedly the paper's last hurrah, but it has served owners, the Daily Mail & General Trust well. It faced an uphill battle getting its rail distribution deal for the lucrative Metro renewed under Livingstone. Not so under Boris. He and the Tory party owe the paper a big fat thank you.

That made its campaign as politically cynical as it gets. Its partisan political coverage is in stark contrast to US rivals. In New York, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post endorsed Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama.

"We don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues. But many Democrats will. He should be their choice on Tuesday."

The Evening Standard did not agree with Ken Livingstone or anything he stood for. It ignored his record on the key issues of transport, housing and the environment and then sort to dismantle him individually and politically in the most lamentable way possible.

The only body it seems to come out of this campaign with any credibility is YouGov. In the end, it was spot on with its predictions.

Its press release over the weekend was headlined: YouGov exactly right in mayoral election and that it was.

Its final poll, published on Thursday morning, showed Boris leading Livingstone by 53%-47%. The result? Boris won by 53%-47%.

Other market research firms also conducted six surveys over the same period and none of them showed Boris well ahead. Their figures ranged from a lead for Livingstone of 4% to a lead for Boris of 2%.

YouGov, run by Tory Peter Kellner, partnered with the Standard and fought off complaints by the Livingstone team about possibly flawed results, and remained confident to the end.

Did they know something that we didn't? I'm guessing not.

Tabloid doom

255762 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:04:43 GMT

In a hilarious piece of selective forecasting in the Evening Standard today, Roy Greenslade predicts the death of certain tabloid newspapers, but failed to mention one key one. Now why could that be?Greenslade kicks off by writing about how newspapes will prevail "once online enthusiasm dies down".

I wouldn't have quite put it like that, I don't see enthusiasm of the pace of digital development dying down, but at the same time I do not see newspapers dying either.

He's right when he points in his piece for the appetite to print, be it in form of our dailies, our free papers or even free magazines.

Sure not all of the print world will survive, but we have lost national and regional newspapers before the advent of the web and we will lose more we forward.

He goes onto make strong claims about the demise of the redtops and the Daily Express, which in a gossip obsessed age seems well wide of the mark. Yes they have lost readers, but the Sun enjoyed a circulation increase of 0.69% from May to 3,064,376. Averaged out over six months, the News International title sells 3,073,046 daily copies, down 2.86% year on year.

The Daily Mirror also experienced a slight rise in circulation in June, up 0.71% from May to 1,565,711. But it suffered one of the worst year-on-year falls of all the national papers -- its six-month average is 1,561,825, a year-on-year decline of 5.54%.

Yes both suffered year-on-year falls, but between them they sell almost 5m copies (more than 5m if you throw in the Daily Star). The Daily Star alone (795,891) outsells the Independent (surely in five years that will be all views and no news?) and The Guardian. Not exactly desertion.

However, while he predicts the problem will get worse, and of course it will, he only picks out the Express as the probably casualty of the so called "doomed" titles.

It is easy to see why. The Daily Express (Greenslade separates it from its mid-market rival the Associated owned Daily Mail) was up 0.58% on May to 770,403 in June. But its year-on-year circulation decline is the worst of all the national papers, down 8.79% with a six-month average of 764,575.

It is suffering, but its fate is as much linked to its proprietorship, in Richard Desmond, as much as anything else. It is a strong newspaper brand. Sadly it’s a bad newspaper.

Yes there is much doom, but surely Roy, if one paper more than any other is under threat it is the one you are writing in the Evening Standard under assault from three free sheets, one free sports mag and a men's mag as well.

The Standard's full-rate sales are down to a lowly 198,601 -- this in the world's capital city -- and the Standard's six-month average circulation is down 16.99% year-on-year.

If ever there was a sick man of newspapers, the Standard is your paper. Greenslade makes a projection over five years. I would project those figures.

Paper chase

255762 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:38:06 GMT

A fresh war of words has broken out between Associated and News International.

In a statement issued this morning, Associated, which publishes the Evening Standard and London Lite, dismissed claims by rival thelondonpaper as misleading.

It is calling thelondonpaper irresponsible for increasing its print run because of the rubbish that it is creating. It might have a point, but they've both recently been hit by rubbish claims (insert some joke in here about the content).

The two freesheets could face a clampdown after complaints from Westminster City Council about the rubbish generated by the two titles' distribution network in the capital. Apparently, Westminster City Council says an extra three tonnes of waste has been produced daily since. Three tons? I hope that's all for the recycle bin.

"Thelondonpaper has been totally irresponsible in increasing its print run by 100,000 when it is clear that many of the existing free papers are being dumped on the streets, and London boroughs are calling for both newspaper groups to resolve the litter problem caused.

"Increasing distribution is meaningless, unless there is an increase in demand. The most likely outcome of this latest increase in free papers is an increase in litter."

OK, fair enough, but then we really get down to it, Associated claims that recent research it carried out, through Other Lines Of Enquiry, showed that its London Lite is the favoured free afternoon paper, with some 58% of thelondonpaper's readers preferring London Lite.

"London Lite continues to satisfy genuine demand, and executives at the paper are working closely with local councils to maximise recycling and resolve the litter problems."

Associated is clearly rattled and maybe with good reason. In the ABCs last week, News International's thelondonpaper continued to lead in the afternoon circulation war, distributing 436,436 compared with Associated's 400,977 copies of London Lite handed out on the streets of the capital.

That's not all. What this is really about is The London Evening Standard. While the ABCs showed it had bounced back in January (only from December, which is less than a real newspaper month), up 5.1% to sales of 276,562, it remains down year on year by 14.1%.

We that it is really about this as Associated tells us so with the rest of its statement that slates thelondonpaper.

"Furthermore, it is absurd for thelondonpaper to compare itself with the Evening Standard, just as it would be if it tried to compare itself to any of the other quality paid for newspapers. It is like comparing a junk snack with a gourmet meal! [Their exclamation marks, I should add.]

"The Evening Standard sets the agenda for London. It is read by opinion formers, people of influence and ideas. It reaches more AB adults then any other daily paper in London -- just the people advertisers want to reach."

If that wasn't enough, Associated has launched an ad campaign this week for the Standard that hits at thelondonpaper even move. It has someone exiting a Tube and dropping it through the gap.

Irked much? I guess so.

UPDATE: Did I say rattled? News International has just put this statement out in response.

"The Standard are clearly rattled. It's a desperate act to cast aspersions on free newspapers, when Associated own both Metro and Lite. Does this suggest a long-term future for Lite? Londoners are deserting the Standard in droves, with 28% less buying the paper in January than in the previous year*. The ABC shows that twice as many people are now picking up thelondonpaper as buying the Standard."

*(Source: ABC Jan 2007 Vs. Jan 2006 net circ excl. bulks).

Ken and the Evening Standard

255762 — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:29:59 GMT

The Evening Standard must be breaking out the bubbly tonight after getting its man – even if he does happen to be London's mayor.

I hope Ken Livingstone does appeal against the decision of the disciplinary panel, which has found him guilty of bringing his office into disrepute. It's unelected and has no place in removing a democratically elected mayor from his job even if it is only for a temporary four week period.

That said, the situation would not have come to this new low if Ken grew up and apologised for an ill judged off the cuff remark comparing the Jewish Standard reporter, Oliver Finegold, to a German concentration camp guard.

He was clearly in the wrong and if it had been another paper there probably would have been an apology forthcoming, but because it was the Standard, London's unchallenged and, sometimes wanting newspaper, that was never going to happen. There's too much bad blood between the mayor and the capital's only newspaper. Routemaster buses are more likely to be brought back. Talking of which...

These two really need to bury the hatchet somewhere other than each other. The whole thing only underlines the need for another London newspaper. Like a choice of candidates Londoners also needs a choice of local newspaper.