Guardian

Guardian Media Group’s Year End Report: Another financial disaster!


The Guardian circulation has dropped to just 216,000, and is now ranked a pitiful 12th in print circulation among UK dailies. 

Guardian Media Group reported profit before taxation of £9m for the year ending April 3, 2011.

And, today, they published the latest official report on the GMG’s performance for the year ending April 1, 2012, and…drum roll please…they recorded a loss before taxation of £75.6m, a 940% decrease!

Click to Enlarge

Read it and weep laugh.

In the meantime, does anyone have ideas on how the Guardian can achieve financial solvency?

Well, Guido Fawkes noted that Guardian CEO Andrew Miller wrote the following to put a good spin on their continuing failures.

“Yet despite this fantastic year of great journalistic success we can not overlook the financial challenges we face at GNM. As I said in July’s staff briefing, our aim is to reduce GNM’s losses to a sustainable level within five years and it is to be expected that as we invest in the future of the Guardian, we will see some increase in GNM’s losses. This is indeed the case for 2011/12.” 

So, my suggestion? 

The Guardian may wish to consider playing the following video in a continuous loop throughout their London offices.

76 replies »

  1. Stalin’s 5-year plans! Tee hee!

    This is just childish.

    What is your problem with the Guardian? Look at the homepage right now.
    What “anti-Semitism”? What “assault on Israel’s legitimacy”?

    Yes, the Guardian does criticise Israel. Get over it.

    Oh – and do at least make an effort to cut out the awful BTL racism here – proportionately far worse than what’s seen at the G.

    You do know that it’s the content that attracts all the bigots, don’t you?

    • Pretzel,
      You amaze how you simply fail to understand and then spin your ignorance as some insight. You don’t understand Hebrews, you don’t understand Zionism and you fail to catch on here.

        • Still waiting for anybody to explain/justify the universally lauded – and bigoted – comment “You don’t understand Hebrews” …

    • Pretz, your contributions to these btl threads are undeniable, but I’m truly baffled by this comment.

      What about our pleasure in the Guardian’s misfortunes don’t you understand?

      Moreover, what about our outrage at the Guardian’s decision to provide platforms for reactionary Islamists who openly desire the murder of Jews don’t you understand?

      This isn’t an abstraction to us. It’s quite personal.

      The Guardian’s ideology is anathema to nearly every political value I hold dear, and I won’t ever apologize for being unmerciful in my rhetorical assaults on their reporters, editors and management.

      Shabbat Shalom,

      • I notice you didn’t respond to pretzelberg’s mention of CifWatchers’ racism, Adam. It comes up very regularly here and is never penalised. As he suggests, similar language from Guardian writers or CiF contributors would bring instant condemnation.

        • Superbly spoken, by someone adherent to the EEJ/Khazar/Converts anti-Semitic canard.
          I think you need to carp about this, and other objections to ‘CifWatchers’ on “Stromfront”… you’d have a far more sympathetic audience there.(Don’t forget to season every sentence with EEJ-related references).

        • sencar when are YOU going to respond to my question?

          To remind you it is;
          “So as you accept the Resolution, can you advise me where you have called for the Palestinian Authority to remove themselves from Bethlehem and other places specified in the Resolution?
          If you have, can you tell me what their response was?”

          You can run but you can’t hide sencar.

      • The Guardian’s ideology is anathema to nearly every political value I hold dear,

        Adam they are not anathema only political values, but basic moral and intellectual values too. Not to speak about simple human decency…

        • Adam they are not anathema only political values, but basic moral and intellectual values too. Not to speak about simple human decency…

          All those values and the princpial of human decency as championed at the G. make a mockery of the questionable morals of this website and most of its BTL posters.

      • The Guardian’s ideology is anathema to nearly every political value I hold dear

        Yes, that’s clear from the many CiFW articles that have little or nowt to do with Jews or Israel.

        Share the wealth? Multiculturalsim?
        No, dirty ideas!

        Ever looked at the extreme right-wing views of those this website tends to attract?

    • “Look at their homepage right now…”
      Now, as far as “childish arguments”, you have to admit Pertzel, this is certainly up there…
      Do you suppose that this must occur every waking second, in order for the Grauniad to qualify as a Kafkaesque, left-wing reproduction of David Duke?
      Rather, this blog has documented evidence, of the constant skewed editorial line of the Guardian, particularly(but not exclusively) the Comment sections, and their simply mendacious representation of Israel and the reality of the conflict thereat.
      That we don’t see this at every cursory glance on their website, is frankly, what still distinguishes the Guardian from “Socialist Unity”, or “Pravda”.

    • “Yes, the Guardian does criticise Israel. Get over it.”
      You’ve got to be kidding. No offense, but should they “get over it” the way you get over insults?

      I’ve got disagree with you here Pretzelberg.
      To the extent that the Guardian’s coverage is unbalanced and unfair it’s perfectly legitimate, and even desirable, to criticize it. Heed your own advice: CiFWatch criticizes the Guardian’s M.E. coverage. Get over it.

      “You do know that it’s the content that attracts all the bigots, don’t you?”
      So now tell us, what attracts bigots to the Guardian, i.e., above as well as BTL?

      • CiFWatch criticizes the Guardian’s M.E. coverage. Get over it.

        But you know that I support CiFW in its criticism of said coverage. I just don’t see the G. as an anti-Semitic publication – which is what gets so many posters here overexcited. Just look at this specimen called Daniel above (a poster who has caught my attention before for anti-Arab comments), for example – claiming that I “don’t understand Hebrews”!!

        • I have said before, pretzelberg, that you are disadvantaged because you lack imagination or, it seems, much capability to take on the role of the other (theory of mind).

          I have also said that you employ a singularly unattractive form of expression, often, in which you confuse your opinions, (which of course you have as much right to hold as the next person) with actual fact. You don’t seem to realise, for example, that just because you may call something “rubbish” or whatever, this does not mean that you are correct!

          This is very annoying, but it’s what makes you you. But you live in a world with other people with whom you’d do well to get along. Do you behave like this off-line, too?

    • “Yes, the Guardian does criticise Israel.”

      Hey, Pretz, So do I, and I would suggest that many of the commenters on this site do as well. The difference is that the Guardian has an agenda. They Blame Israel unfairly, they Demonize Israel unfairly and they Scapegoat Israel unfairly. Their own BDS, if you will. Some would say it’s an anti-Semitic agenda. I’d be one of those people.

      So beyond my own issues, what’s the problem, even if the Guardian does that? Circulation numbers aside, it lends a voice to lies that, to the uninformed, seem credible and which therefore gain traction in society. The Guardian helps these lies become the dominant narrative.

      This is not something people should EVER “get over.”

      • Amen Dan.
        When a western paper which claims to adhere to democracy acts as a platform for scum who send suicide bombers into cafe’s the gloves come off. I dare say there is no other EU paper of such repute that would give Islamist forces so much print. It is laughable we’re it not all deadly. Once you connect the dots from the arm chair socialists to the bunker dwellers in Beirut there can only be one conclusion.

      • So beyond my own issues, what’s the problem, even if the Guardian does that? Circulation numbers aside, it lends a voice to lies that, to the uninformed, seem credible and which therefore gain traction in society. The Guardian helps these lies become the dominant narrative.

        Very true. And ‘they’ know this.

        Still. The fightback is gaining attention and popularity. The Guardian is under attack as it never was before. Not only on this site. There is a growing perception amongst the UK public that a once respected newspaper has become a propaganda rag pushing the vile agenda of the progressive, extremest, hard, delusional left. The (two-way) umbilical cord between the Guardian and the BBC is coming under serious scrutiny too.

        Being a ‘Guardian Reeder’ is coming to be seen as extremist and delusional. True intellectuals are deserting it in droves.

        • “Being a ‘Guardian Reeder’ is coming to be seen as extremist and delusional. True intellectuals are deserting it in droves.”

          I’m glad to hear it!

        • Nobbly

          While I hope you’re right, I just don’t see the evidence for what you’re asserting to be the case. I see a huge multicultural overlay in the UK. In concept, multiculturalism isn’t bad. In practice, though, part of it somehow gets interpreted as tolerance for radical islamism. And part of that comes out as anti-Semitism.

          I just don’t see a popular anti-Guardian, anti-Leftist, anti-BBC movement. I just don’t see them “under attack.” Or “under scrutiny”.

        • Very true.

          I wrote the very first article for CiF Watch in August 2009, “Lies, Big Lies and Comment is Free” at http://cifwatch.com/2009/08/25/lies-big-lies-and-comment-is-free/

          CiF has undermined the honesty of reasoned discussion and altered the discourse which has led to the false dichotomy that Palestinians are invariably blameless victims of Israeli aggression when of course they are not, and that Israel is invariably the aggressor, when of course it is not.

          This, and its frankly filthy habit of allowing murderous Islamists to bleat on its pages that they are “oppressed” (when they damn well should be for wanting to wage the war without end of which they are so inordinately proud and, moreover, sacrifice their own young to it as well as Israeli Jews, rather than make a lasting peace and build the state they complain they cannot have).

          I agree, NobblyStick, that the fightback is gaining strength and thank heavens for it, but that is also because Islamism is making its presence felt in the West, and more and more people are uneasy about it, and the Guardian’s lunatic left support for it is unmistakable.

          And the BBC lost its credibility when it refused to publish the Balen Report (what has it to hide?) and spent tens of thousands of UK taxpayers’ money making sure that the information in it never saw the light of day.

    • Hey Pretzeldude,

      You dont seem to have a lot of support for your views.

      Why dont you just give up?

      • Daisy D,
        That was quite a….tribute…to free speech and pluralism.
        Perhaps you can help me with the following problem. I support Israel and her independence, without interference in her affairs from biased, far left-wing bubbleheads wearing ideological blinders, NGO’s supported by various EU countries, the OIC working through the UN, etc., but alas, there’s not a lot of support for this view nowadays. Do you think I ought to “just give up” or should I just give your comment a rating of very poor?

        • Pretz is not a troll. He is allergic to OTT and near OTT comments. I generally ignore them on CW threads but he doesn’t.

          • I’d substitute “can’t” for “doesn’t”, NobblyStick

            There’s a whole world of difference between the two

    • Yes, the Guardian does criticise Israel. Get over it.

      The Guardian goes far beyond fair criticism. For example it hosts Caryl Churchill’s anti-semtic play, Seven Jewish Children on its website. What kind of journalism is that?

      Then it publishes articles such as the one by Deborah Orr, that claimed that the Gilad Sahlit prisoner swap proved Israeli society was racist,because so many Arab terrorists were exchanged for a single Jew.

      Then there’s the support for anti-semites like Raeed Salah…. the articles by Hamas … the silence on Palestinian crimes …

      The truth is that the Guardian has been pursing a vicious hate campaign against one country for years. That is an abuse of power which must be challenged.

      I like many others are delighted to hear of the Guardian’s financial difficulties, and hope they will continue to deepen. Get over it.

      • “The truth is that the Guardian has been pursing a vicious hate campaign against one country for years. That is an abuse of power which must be challenged.”
        Challenged and defeated. It’s sick.

      • The Guardian goes far beyond fair criticism. For example it hosts Caryl Churchill’s anti-semtic play, Seven Jewish Children on its website. What kind of journalism is that? Then it publishes articles such as the one by Deborah Orr, that claimed that the Gilad Sahlit prisoner swap proved Israeli society was racist,because so many Arab terrorists were exchanged for a single Jew.

        The Guardian has descended to become a propaganda rag for the hard irrational LEFT. I wouldn’t mind so much but it has influence on the less hard irrational LEFT who have not woken up to its change of emphasis. It is obsessed negatively with the US and Israel. It sneaks in derogatory comments about them on unconnected threads, uses misrepresentation and omission to ‘make its case’ and rubs shoulders with rank anti Semites and Islamists under the umbrella of ‘fair and balanced’ along with ‘free speech’. (But never an article from the BNP. Not that I would read it but, I do not claim to be fair and balanced)..

        All this while claiming to be the voice of the progressive LEFT.

        What a shambles.

      • Me too!

        I look forward to hearing that Rusbucket has had to sign on the dole (no such luck, he’d probably get a job in the Foreign Office with his “cachet”, opinions and background) and to witnessing the whole damn boiling of them follow in short order.

        Harriet should be good at chicken farming.

        Bella Mackie should stack shelves at a well known supermarket – she’d be a sight more use at that than she is at the Groan.

        And then I vote that CiF Watch hire a rather large lady to sing at them as they all slope out for the last time and any of us who are nearby give ’em the slow handclap

    • pretzelberg, the Guardian’s behaviour shows a pattern of ill-informed, biased animus against Israel and blind support of the Islamists who would destroy her. Now, this need not happen every day, but if it happens often enough for it to constitute a pattern – and it does – then your direction to look at the home page or wherever today really makes no difference to the central argument in this article, does it?

      We would need to see a series of editions – probably for at least as long as the Guardian has been bashing Israel and supporting and promoting its enemies – before any argument that it is not so biased has any merit.

  2. As much as I delight in this news, the print circulation numbers are of no great import. The LA Times just introduced a money policy. The Groan will have to as well, if they wish to survive. This would cut deeply into their viewing numbers. As the Left will not pay to hate across the net.

    • As the Left will not pay to hate across the net.

      Very true. When they do introduce a paywall, CiFWatch will know that it has a partial victory.

      It The Groan introduces pre-moderation, then they will be responsible for some of the filth that they ‘allow’ to be displayed under the heading of ‘free speech’. I have often seen ‘Saint Berchmans’ referring to Israelis as ‘Baby killers’. If anything like the Toulouse attack happen in the UK, I will blame The Guardian for allowing that vile anti Semitic clown to post ‘baby killers’.

  3. The following quote is from the Press Gazette story about this.

    “Dame Amelia Fawcett DBE, chair of GMG, said: “At Guardian Media Group (GMG), securing a sustainable future for quality journalism has been our number one priority during the last year.”

    Quality journalism our number one priority during the last year?
    Now there is a person with a future writing comedy, either that or it is time for her medication as her deluions are starting to surface.

    • Now there is a person with a future writing comedy, either that or it is time for her medication as her deluions are starting to surface.

      Great response to Dame Amelia Fawcett DBE, chair of GMG ramblings. One has to wonder who these relatively faceless people are to support such a denigration of what is known as ‘NEWS’.

  4. Actually for the period from 28 May 2012 to 1 July 2012 their daily average sales for Monday to Friday was only 177,000 copies. It is the Saturdays, when they sold on average 371,000 copies a day that brought their total average for that month up to around 211,500 copies. In Scotland they struggle to sell 12,000 in a month.

    Based on this, their approximate annual revenue from newspaper sales (i.e. non advertising) can be calculated as follows:

    177,000 copies a day x £1.20 per copy x 260 days in a year = £55 million
    371,000 copies on Sat x £2.10 per copy x 52 Sats in a year = £40 million

    Making a grand total of under £95 million.

    (The above is a generous estimate as I have counted all their copies at full rate)

    So is this sufficient to pay their salaries and pensions?

    Must say, it does not bode well for the uber “anti-Israeli” pro-Islamist rag.

  5. Another way of looking at developments at the Groan could be that they have certainly branched out widely. From more life style and celeb, to arts, Eco and travel, video & photo. All this is done very aesthetically. I think they even won prizes for looks. All this has been done to draw people to the site. There is a difference between the ‘life style’ Groan-light, and the undeniable far Left approach to many a political topic. The Groan has pulled of a hypocritical split of life-style-washing its content and still holding the workers fist high. This must make the old Groan readers heart bleed as even this rag can not escape the world of luxury consumer journalism to make ends meet. Fact is the majority of readers are past the street battle point of never ending kvetching and in denial that capitalism has won the day and third world fascists make for bad travel tips, be they in Iran or Venezuela.
    I think we will see massive change at the Groan within a few years. The fat ones are ova Tova. When is the Groans piggy bank depleted? Or will they be subsidized at nauseam like the miners and Cuba? By who? Iran? Moscow? Caracas? Michael Moore? Amy ‘Good’man? Hezbollah drug money? Will Harriet move to Al Jazzy?

  6. I quickly calculated annual (non advertising) revenues from newspaper sales:
    The Times £130 million
    Telegraph £238 million
    Daily Mail £360 million
    (Although The Times sell more copies than Gruan, their price is much lower and Daily Mail out sells the lot of them)

  7. My belief (hope?) is that this is all part of a vicious — and hopefully downward — cycle. 1. To build circulation, Guardian believes it needs to appeal to base constituency. 2. Guardian skews even more left. 3. Moderates stop reading. Rinse, repeat.

    • How much is Rusbridger earning per annum?

      And for what, if the circulation is falling?

      Surely they could get a computer bot to run the show for much, much less.

      Mind you, it’d probably have to be designed in Israel….

    • It might be so bad at the Guaridan they might have to lay off Harriet Sherwood

      Yes. It would be nice to see Dearest Harriet thrown out of the air-conditioned comfort of the American Colony hotel and sent back to her small flat in suburbia. I might even fell sorry for her when it happens. She has nothing except her hate for Israel.

    • It might be so bad at the Guaridan they might have to lay off Harriet Sherwood

      Oh dear quel fromage (I understand that’s French for “hard cheese”).

  8. This is the Guardian’s Limbo dance lets see how much lower can this Grungy Rag go.

    The Guardian’s swan song……….

    • No. I wouldn’t miss it at all. But there are other sites out there that would ‘enjoy’ my attention when The Guardian is history. (Huffington Post, BBC, …..).

    • I miss the ‘Guardian’ of old which was a quality newspaper which acted on the principle that ‘comment is free, but facts are sacred’. It now no longer exists.

    • I think you would “real”zionist.

      Adam, I have an idea for a competition.

      Although I won’t have the Guardian in my house, on the rare occasions people bring it with them when they visit (and leave it behind when they leave) I have found that it makes excellent mulch for my plants, as well as being very absorbent of mud and other dirt for the garden.

      Can we have an ongoing article or something along the lines of “101 uses for The Guardian”?

      I’ve given a couple of suggestions.