财经文章阅读

财经文章阅读

  去年，《卫报》曾因头条爆料《世界新闻报》窃听丑闻一事而名声大噪。不过，报道好做并不代表报业好做。9月15日，卫报传媒集团取消了一份自愿离职计划书，该计划未能成功说服符合公司意向的100名员工自愿离职。一场内幕之争在所难免。
   对于一贯左倾的卫报而言，这样的前景未免惨淡，不过这个时代本就风云多变。上个月，卫报集团财务报出约7600万英镑（1.21亿美元）的年度亏损，其中新闻部损失达5400万英镑。卫报传媒集团总裁安德鲁·米勒希望到2016年3月将成本削减2500万，同时也已卖出无线电等一些部门。
   从某种程度上说，卫报的财力早已今非昔比。有斯科特信托基金这个大后台力保其“经久不衰”。卫报传媒集团旗下可能持有现金约2.5亿英镑，另外还创有投资基金，掌握着一些公司的股份，尤其是至少能为其提供5亿英镑债务清算能力的汽车交易商杂志的出版公司。即便公司目前的亏损率持续下去，卫报也还能再扑腾十年以上，不过，想“经久不衰”就难了。
   大部分英国报纸的发行量都在减少，广告份额也大不如前。米勒先生说：“大家的困境是相同的，这是我们心知肚明的。”不过，卫报自身也面临着不同的挑战。分析师克莱尔·恩德斯说，就读者而言，卫报比起诸如每日电讯报或是泰晤士报要更年轻化，所以卫报读者更倾向于以电子版取代纸质版。因此，卫报在电子广告上下了重注。
   如今，卫报在全球最受欢迎新闻网站中排名第三，仅次于每日邮报和纽约时报。然而，电子广告收益并不能完全抵消纸质版亏损。去年，卫报电子版收入为4600万英镑，但广告收入不到1700万，其他收入主要依靠在线更新和iPad应用出售。由于供应商增加，展示广告总体盈利下降。据估算，国家新闻网上的每千次展示计费徘徊在约7到9英镑之间，比金融危机前12到15英镑的计费有所降低。
   越来越多的卫报业内与业外人士认为，卫报理应实行网络收费。鉴于多家报业已开始实行，卫报也不应例外。其主要自由派竞争对手——纽约时报在2011年3月已经引入计量付费制。自6月以来，纽约时报集团已拥有5.32万订阅者愿意接受付费数字报。据巴克莱银行推算，这足以抵消纸质版广告效益的亏损。
   米勒表示，公司将继续“监督付费墙”，而不“反对付费墙”。不过，付费态度的转变是一种文化歪曲。卫报编辑艾伦·罗斯布里奇曾是“开放式新闻业”的执旗手，如今也希望得到读者的“投资”。创建付费墙以限制报纸内容浏览权限有违卫报在数字时代的自由价值观取向。
   令人担心的是，卫报并不急于找出一种付费模式。米勒先生称付费一事“言之过早”。公司正在向数字刊注入更多资源，同时削减成本，继续坚持免费阅读网络内容。看起来，这实在不像保护企业的长久之计。待亡羊补牢，为时已晚。




LAST year the Guardian newspaper was riding high, having triumphantly exposed phone-hacking at the News of the World. But good journalism is not the same as a good journalism business. On September 15th the Guardian Media Group closed a voluntary redundancy scheme, which had failed to attract the 100 takers the company had hoped for. A nasty fight with its union could follow.
That is an uncomfortable prospect for a left-leaning outfit, but these are uncomfortable times. Last month the firm reported an annual loss of around £76m ($121m). Its newspaper unit lost £54m. Andrew Miller, Guardian Media Group’s boss, wants to cut £25m in costs by March 2016, and has sold businesses, such as the radio division.
In one respect the Guardian is better off than most. It is backed by the Scott Trust, which is designed to ensure it survives “in perpetuity”. The Guardian Media Group probably has around £250m in cash and an investment fund, as well stakes in companies, notably the publisher of Auto Trader, which it could liquidate for at least £500m. The newspaper could survive for more than a decade even if its losses continue at the current rate. But not in perpetuity.
Most British newspapers are suffering from falling circulation and weak advertising. “Everyone has the same dilemma. It’s just that we’re utterly transparent about it, ” says Mr Miller. But the Guardian has some unique challenges. Its readers are younger than those of, say, the Daily Telegraph or theTimes, and thus more willing to ditch print newspapers for digital news, says Claire Enders, an analyst. And it has bet heavily on the stumbling horse of digital advertising.
The Guardian is now the third most popular newspaper website in the world, after the Daily Mail and the New York Times. Yet digital advertising is not bringing in nearly enough money to offset print losses. The Guardian’s digital revenues were £46m last year, but advertising accounted for less than £17m of that, with the rest coming from things like online dating and sales of iPad apps. Overall display-advertising rates have fallen as supply has increased. National news sites now fetch only around £7-9 for 1, 000 impressions, down from £12-15 before the financial crisis, according to one estimate.
A growing group, both outside the Guardian and within it, now believes the paper should start charging online. It is increasingly alone in not doing so: the paper’s main liberal rival, the New York Times, introduced a metered pay wall in March 2011. As of June the New York Times Company had 532, 000 paying digital subscribers across its publications. Barclays, a bank, calculates that this should be more than enough to offset a decline in print advertising.
Mr Miller says his company will continue to “monitor pay walls” and that it is not “anti pay wall”. But a change would be culturally wrenching. The Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, has been a flag-bearer for “open journalism”, which invites input from readers. Erecting a pay wall, and thereby curbing access to content, is at odds with the paper’s liberal values, as it has defined them in the digital age.
Worryingly, there seems to be little urgency to figure out a model that can pay. Mr Miller says it is still “early days”. The company is ploughing more resources into digital while cutting costs and persisting with free online content. This looks less and less like a long-term business strategy. The day is getting late.

受教了