I cannot let pass without comment the revelation about the huge sums wasted by News International on publishing its giveaway title, thelondonpaper, as reported by Chris Tryhorn last week. It is a staggering amount to spend on a paper, especially one that contains editorial content of so little merit and which ends up littering London's streets, buses and tube trains.
Let's look again at those figures. In its first 10 months of publication it lost £16.8m, and I understand that the 12-month total will be around £19m. That is a staggering loss by national newspaper standards let alone those of a local paper (for that is what it is). I accept the argument advanced by thelondonpaper's managing director, Ian Clark, that the total includes substantial start-up costs, but it's still a lot of red ink.
There are also signs that thelondonpaper is finding it more and more difficult to maintain its distribution levels. It regularly records larger distribution numbers than its Associated Newspapers rival, London Lite. In March, its audited figure was 500,792 copies compared to Lite's 395,633. But thelondonpaper is now being given away from 2.30pm and often continuing until 8.30 while Lite restricts its daily giveaway times from 4.30 to 7.30.
Why should that matter? Apart from the on-cost, there is the important matter of distilling the profile of the readership. Afternoon giveaways to shoppers, trippers and tourists may bump up numbers but they are not as valued by advertisers who wish to get their messages across to the famed affluent young urbanites who commute daily into the city centre.
Then there is the move out of zone one to zones two and three. Copies of thelondonpaper are being handed out in Clapham and even as far out from the centre as Wimbledon. That is also costly.
Of course, London Lite is costing a fortune too. And its owners are not prepared to reveal how much. All that I can gather from Steve Auckland, head of AN's free newspapers division, is that its losses are "significantly less" than those of thelondonpaper. "We are on course to fulfil our five-year plan to achieve profitability," he says.
At this point I feel I should respectfully remind thelondonpaper's editor, Stefano Hatfield, of what he said in February last year about his paper being on target to be profitable by the end of the second year. I don't think so.
The sad truth is that the war of attrition will continue as the two groups go on publishing their giveaway titles. After all, people still go on accepting them, don't they, tamely taking them from the vendors. But why? What is there to read?
I have a friend who works at thelondonpaper, a journalist with a good pedigree. After reading my negative comments in the past about its editorial content she urged me to take another look. "You'll be surprised", she said.
So instead of ignoring the purple-garbed distributors outside Victoria Station, as I normally do, I collected two copies on successive days last week and I was indeed surprised. Surprised that my friend should seek to defend a paper that is so full of drivel. There was nothing remotely interesting to read.
I thought I had better try the Lite as well. I suppose I could make out a case for that being marginally better. It has a slightly more authentic newspaper "feel", and it benefits from better coverage of affairs in the metropolis. It is, after all, linked to the Evening Standard, giving it access to better-sourced information (full disclosure: I write a weekly column in the Standard).
However, to be fair, there is little in either paper to detain a reader for more than 10 minutes or so, if that. There are good free newspapers in cities around the world, as I once discovered in Barcelona. But London is ill-served by these two freesheets.
Please Rupert. Please Jonathan. Kiss. Make up. Give up. Let us travel around London without pages of newsprint flying about the carriages - and help your paid-for titles at the same time.
.png?w=600)
