UK site The Guardian drops Apple News in bid to boost ad & subscription revenues
Prominent U.K. newspaper The Guardian on Friday pulled out of two major app-based initiatives, Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles, in a bid to reclaim revenue.
"We have run extensive trials on Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News to assess how they fit with our editorial and commercial objectives. Having evaluated these trials, we have decided to stop publishing in those formats on both platforms," The Guardian said in a statement to Digiday.
"Our primary objective is to bring audiences to the trusted environment of the Guardian to support building deeper relationships with our readers, and growing membership and contributions to fund our world-class journalism."
Sites like The Guardian do make money from Apple News and Instant Articles, particularly since Apple News now prompts people to subscribe to access stories hidden behind a paywall. By directing readers to its own site and app, however, The Guardian is likely improving its take from ads, and can more directly nudge people into subscribing or at least donating.
In 2016 the site hit 200,000 subscribers, a number it will need to boost dramatically to hit a goal of 1 million by 2019. It also managed over 100,000 one-time contributions.
The Guardian is still involved with Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages, which like Instant Articles should load faster on mobile devices. In March the publication announced that some 60 percent of its traffic was coming in via AMP.
"We have run extensive trials on Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News to assess how they fit with our editorial and commercial objectives. Having evaluated these trials, we have decided to stop publishing in those formats on both platforms," The Guardian said in a statement to Digiday.
"Our primary objective is to bring audiences to the trusted environment of the Guardian to support building deeper relationships with our readers, and growing membership and contributions to fund our world-class journalism."
Sites like The Guardian do make money from Apple News and Instant Articles, particularly since Apple News now prompts people to subscribe to access stories hidden behind a paywall. By directing readers to its own site and app, however, The Guardian is likely improving its take from ads, and can more directly nudge people into subscribing or at least donating.
In 2016 the site hit 200,000 subscribers, a number it will need to boost dramatically to hit a goal of 1 million by 2019. It also managed over 100,000 one-time contributions.
The Guardian is still involved with Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages, which like Instant Articles should load faster on mobile devices. In March the publication announced that some 60 percent of its traffic was coming in via AMP.
Comments
I also agree with Paxman's comments about the overall quality of Apple News so perhaps the Guardian isn't a good fit there anyway.
I either:
Don't care about the sport and don't care about the result.
Do care about the sport, have seen the game and know the result.
Worst case, care about the game, haven't yet seen it and the result is spoiled.
PS: I like the Guardian and will just continue to use their app.
The revenue problem for news outlets such as The Guardian is they are essentially competing with public broadcasters like the ever expanding Beeb. It is very hard to make a living if you produce the exact same product as a monolithic competitor that is able to rely on tax dollars (sorry pounds)/the public purse for its revenue stream rather than sell content for which consumers are prepared to pay.
Because of that reality, I don't think a paywall will help the poor old Gruniard.
The Guardian apps are great; they really look good and work well. And their subscription prices are reasonable. However the writing is really bad. There seems to be a personal agenda behind every journalist and every article reads like an opinion piece. Every story is one-sided, exaggerated, sensationalistic or just angry.
But if they do one thing, please employ some proof readers. Your foopahs are legendary but recently it has got stupid.
One recen article said that the "Last Power Station would close in 2026". Er.... No. The last Coal Fired Power station maybe. I know they pretend to be sort of greenish left so getting rid of all current Nuclear and Gas would go down nicely. The Term "Power Station" also includes Hydro as well. Better order the candles now then.
Yes we we are living in times when if a fact isn't liked and reported all the sudden it is labeled fake news. We are all doomed when we can't even agree on basic facts.
Its McCarthism all over again. You don't like something somebody said, label them a communist.
Todays its label the person a leftist, right winged, etc. It is simply a way of avoiding addressing the merits of an issue.
You can always try Minix or some dumb ass Plan 9 for shits and giggles.
McCarthy was not vindicated. He's a POS and always will be. He was not vindicated, no matter what a few `scholars' add to his Wikipedia page.