Is a paper's online readership really "good for the ego" but nothing else?

News UK boss Mike Darcey thinks so.

News UK boss Mike Darcey today condemned the vast online readership numbers claimed by the likes of Mail Online and Guardian.co.uk as "good for the ego" and not much else.

He spoke out as his flagship title, The Sun, goes behind an online paywall as of 1 August. Darcey has a point.

The explosion in online readership of UK media titles has coincided with an unprecedentedly severe media slump which is now five years old.

So for the two leading free-to-air national newspapers online – the Mail and Guardian – we won’t know for sure whether they have a digital business until the economy finally picks up. But as it stands, all those online eyeballs have yet to translate into a sustainable business model.

Both Guardian News and Media and Mail Online are believed to make between £40m and £50m from the digital sides of their businesses.

In June, Mail Online attracted 8.2m "unique browsers" per day globally, and The Guardian 4.6m (according to ABC).

For Mail Online the digital income is growing fast, but it is still tiny compared with combined print and digital turnover of around £600m a year.

For Guardian News and Media that digital income needs to be seen in the context of annual costs of around £240m, and a loss in the year to April 2012 of £44.2m.

Both sites currently appear to be wedded to the free online model. If they are going to eschew the paywall, they are going to have to come up with a plan B – and do so pretty quickly.

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette. You can follow him on twitter at @domponsford.

Getting your news the traditional way, in a silly hat. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.