Clearly Richard is a genius. He is in Barcelona right now (on reconnaissance for his “moderator” gig at the Disruptive Thinking conference put on by Art Center and ESADE in March), otherwise so you can be assured that he would force me to erase that claim. But, consider all the recent hub-bub about a national newspaper going “free”:

1)The FT is convinced that “tumbling” circulation at the red tops is going to push one or both of the top tier papers (The Sun and Mirror) into the free category

2) The Guardian reported yesterday that The Independent (owner of similarly tumbling circulation) is “mulling” a free edition. Editor Simon Kelner retorted:

“It’s utter rubbish,” Kelner told MediaGuardian.co.uk. “And I think it’s shameful journalism on the part of Guardian Media that you present unsubstantiated gossip as news.”

Aside: Its easy to sympathize with Kelner’s point. Both reports are based mainly on interviews with outside consultants or “analysts”. The FT’s report in particular is sourced, seemingly wholy, on comments from Douglas McCabe of Enders who, according to Enders themselves specializes in online publishing has never worked at a national paper (which is not to say, of course, that he is not linked in or that his predictions are inaccurate).

But back to the point at hand. Richard made the argument last year in a column for the Guardian that big papers might be better off going free and his argument still makes just as much sense now as it did then (take a look, basically its all about the trade off between circulation revenue and circulation rise). But the interesting thing for me is the lingering negative connotation of going “free”. Andy Taylor’s, head of press at Carat, comments to the Guardian are particularly revealing:

“I think it would compromise the editorial integrity and the Independent’s current standard”

Its easy to see how, in the context of a London full of free papers specializing in recycled celebrity news, these negative connotations could emerge but it isn’t right to say that just because a paper is free that its editorial integrity or quality is necessarily compromised. And the economics support it, just ask genius man Richard.

Entry Filed under: Newspapers