1. Exquisite Tweets from @arusbridger, @emilybell, @johngapper, @jxpaton, @annamasera, @felixsalmon, @deanstarkman, @brianeha, @dsquareddigest

    PreoccupationsCollected by Preoccupations

    Both @kenauletta @carr2n praise the Guardian - but David C says now is the moment to start charging youtube.com/watch?v=z548cR…

    Reply Retweet Like

    arusbridger

    alan rusbridger

  2. @arusbridger @kenauletta @carr2n there should be a timeline of quotes of people saying 'now is the time to charge' ..going back to 2002

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    The thing about paywalls is...they are a short term strategy (not that there is anything wrong with that).

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  3. @emilybell @arusbridger @kenauletta @carr2n yes, it would go nicely alongside the chart of the accumulated financial losses

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  4. @johngapper @arusbridger @kenauletta @carr2n ....and the major stories which change national/international institutions and discourse?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  5. @emilybell IMHO, they are not a strategy just a short term tactic.

    Reply Retweet Like

    jxpaton

    John Paton

  6. @emilybell @arusbridger @kenauletta @carr2n well, the end of the story ain't been written, so we'll see whether it was a sound investment

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  7. . @jxpaton you are right - they should be, but think in some cases the tactics are given strategic status.

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    .@johngapper interesting cost benefit analysis. As @dicktofel talked about the cost of the Tylenol story being $750k. How do you value it?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    .@johngapper so..what would you consider a reasonable cost for the Guardian's journalistic achievement and the impact they might have?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  8. @emilybell My fear is the industry takes the short term paywall money and stands down on true digital innovation.

    Reply Retweet Like

    jxpaton

    John Paton

  9. .@johngapper , not a trolling question but, seriously, how would you evaluate curren @guardian balance sheet in terms of 'value' or 'worth'?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  10. @emilybell If Guardian pulls out of its financial nosedive before the trust goes bust, fine. If not, there won't be a long-term.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

    @emilybell @guardian I think the brand is worth a lot and someone will always rescue it. But then it won't be owned by a trust anymore.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  11. .@johngapper that is just basic maths of sustainability. But it doesn't answer my question. Is 'return on investment' only monetary?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  12. @emilybell no, but if the Grauniad goes bust, its social purpose dies too.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  13. @jxpaton @emilybell We look at the Guardian as leader in innovation, but it's loosing money... :(

    Reply Retweet Like

    annamasera

    Anna Masera

  14. . @johngapper @guardian this presumes journalism and it's successful impact always correlate with profitability. A discredited notion,surely

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  15. @emilybell @guardian you're being obtuse, Emily. If it goes bust, the rest goes too. And it's currently heading that way.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  16. .@annamasera @jxpaton so is @Twitter so did @Facebook for a while. You sometimes have to lose money to change the world. This seems obvious.

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    .@johngapper two things.a. It is not going bust, it has a cross subsidy model you don't like. b. 'the rest' has happened.

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    . @johngapper but you also want to decouple an extraordinary 20 plus years of editorial achievement from its business model. Not possible

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  17. @emilybell if a. is true, then fine. I think it's unproven, to put it mildly. As to b., that implies it can pack up now, which seems odd.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

    @emilybell As I say, if it pulls out of the nosedive, fine. If not, history will judge that it was a terminal blunder.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  18. @johngapper @emilybell Terminal isn't necessarily bad: the Observer should be shut down, for starters. That would help hugely.

    Reply Retweet Like

    felixsalmon

    Felix Salmon

  19. Missing tweet: 386891474748833792

  20. @felixsalmon @johngapper my point is this: is the @guardian investment 'worth it'? You cannot answer that in ROI terms.

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    @jamesrbuk @johngapper yes of course you are right...because it represents the most uncomfortable truth for news 'industry'.

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  21. Too true. What bothers me is that it was so freaking obvious even at the time, for pete's sake.

    Reply Retweet Like

    deanstarkman

    dean starkman

  22. @ryanchittum @zeynep yes, obvious (but denied) when I wrote on Guardian in 2010 and three years ago: storify.com/mathewi/paywal…

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  23. Damn if that Storify isn't one of the best examples of talking at cross purposes that I've ever seen.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

    Hasn't aged well: the confident assumption that it wasn't a problem for Twitter to be bleeding money.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

  24. Missing tweet: 804454011487199232

  25. Yeah. Not great. Rusbridger could do no wrong in his people's eyes. But the writing was on the wall.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

    At the saw time, it is true great journalism isn't always profitable—and may even be anti-profitable.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

  26. Missing tweet: 804457108850675712

  27. And yet a lot of media enterprises have spent the past several years retooling for clickbait traffic.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

  28. Missing tweet: 804458005395709952

  29. It's almost as if they bet the entire future of their businesses (and the media) on terrible content.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

    The Guardian's problem is more unique, of course, given that it's propped up by the trust.

    Reply Retweet Like

    brianeha

    Brian Patrick Eha

  30. nice subtweeting guys. How are you all planning to keep high quality news free?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  31. fair point about subtweets. but we never believed news shd be free. that was the issue, no?

    Reply Retweet Like

    deanstarkman

    dean starkman

  32. which is what it continues to do. There are mass cuts at or coming to even subs businesses

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    some think ALL news should be paid for at point of consumption. Models that try to keep....

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    high quality news free are not merely delusional. That has to be an aim too, right?

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  33. Readers, subsidies (taxpayers, telcos, internet cos) and third thing TBD (ads, newsletters.

    Reply Retweet Like

    deanstarkman

    dean starkman

  34. my argument with John was whether a business success was more important than civic impact

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  35. I refer you to "profit seeking enterprise managed in efficient manner" in Scott Trust aims

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  36. good aims, though I have v publicly questioned 'profit seeking' as possible or desirable

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

    not everyone agrees with me, which is fine too.Though non-profit becomes evermore important

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  37. a theory of media econ ought to explain more data points than just the Guardian

    Reply Retweet Like

    dsquareddigest

    Dan Davies

  38. are you guys suggesting that a sharp fall in advertising is a good reason to abandon rising subscriptions?

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

    if so, that's an interesting perspective on how to run a business

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper

  39. maybe that this is a non-binary issue. No right obvious answers

    Reply Retweet Like

    emilybell

    emily bell

  40. of course it isn't binary. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot for ideological reasons, that's all.

    Reply Retweet Like

    johngapper

    John Gapper