The London Lite departs but what next for the Standard?
If the London Evening Standard becomes just another free paper following the demise of the London Lite, Alexander Lebedev will have lost a large sum of money for nothing, says Raymond Snoddy.
The death of the London Lite has been like the slow motion recording of a car crash. Unfortunately for the journalists concerned the trajectories were pre-determined the moment the Evening Standard took its revolutionary decision to become a free title earlier this month.
Under employment legislation it’s called a “consultation” which “may” result in closure. The only remaining uncertainty is when the last edition of London Lite will appear on the streets, though doubtless in the bowels of Associated Newspapers the date is already very well known.
What does the latest casualty in the London free newspaper wars say about the state of free newspapers, other than the obvious fact that they are difficult to run in the depths of an advertising recession without accumulating ruinous losses?
It is now clear that last month represented the high water mark of the free revolution in London. For the very last time a Londoner with a taste for free newspapers could pick up copies of Metro and City AM in the morning, both almost certainly profitable despite the recession. In the afternoon you could pick up thelondonpaper and London Lite and then pay 50p for a “proper” newspaper, the London Evening Standard. The only thing missing was an entry into the market by Richard Desmond who was, in the end, far too smart to be caught in a pincer movement between Rupert Murdoch and Viscount Rothermere.
For three magic years there seemed to be a renaissance of newspaper reading in the capital. Nobody could claim that the populace, including the young supposedly lost to newspapers for ever, had no interest in newspapers. You could see people moving around tube compartments to pick up their copy. It was enough to gladden an old hack’s heart, even if a lot of the copy was little more than agency re-writes.
Was it ever sustainable even before the recession struck? Probably not. It always had more to do with proprietorial vanities and geographical rivalries than business sense.
Once Murdoch decided to launch thelondonpaper it was always inevitable that Rothermere would launch a spoiler which would, of course, be called a long-planned strategic initiative.
If not actually in his genes, spoilers were firmly embedded in the Rothermere family tradition. After all it was his father who resurrected the long-dead London Evening News, temporarily, to see off Robert Maxwell’s Daily News. This was more serious and did indeed, for a brief period resemble a strategy.
The Standard would go up market and take the hit on circulation from its 50p cover price while London Lite would protect its flank and block incursions by Murdoch.
Surprisingly it was Murdoch who blinked first as part of his new strategy of charging a “fair” price for the intellectual content his companies have created.
Meanwhile, Rothermere was overjoyed that he managed to sell nearly 75% of the Standard to Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev for £1.
Rothermere wanted rid of the Standard‘s losses but, just as important, he did not want to be the man responsible for closing the Standard with all the attendant redundancy charges.
In a great deal for Associated, Lebedev would keep the paper going and pay £25 million into escrow to cover redundancy payments in the event of closure.
The decision to take the Evening Standard free was inevitable too. The circulation had continued to sink despite the re-launch with new editor Geordie Grieg and the losses were running at a rate of around £30 million a year. Further circulation falls and higher losses seemed inevitable and there are limits even for rich Russian oligarchs.
It was a brave, even courageous, decision to take the Standard free. It is probably the last shake of the dice. There is no “Plan-B”.
The decision also meant curtains for the loss-making London Lite. Associated would in effect be competing against itself and paying the Standard for editorial content. The decision to “consult” must not have taken very long.
From three to one free newspaper in the afternoon in a matter of months.
The big question yet unanswered is whether the Standard is sustainable over the longer term in anything like its present “paid-for” structure. It still feels terrific value – almost a steal even – though it had already been considerably fluffed up by its recently appointed editor.
The deal is good for advertisers – a circulation of 600,000 rather than 250,000 if the distribution and the “quality” of the audience is maintained. Already the new Standard seems to be ignoring the suburbs, a considerable mistake, and going for the easy target of central London.
The biggest danger of all, which will be very tempting over the longer term, is to embark on a campaign of cost-cutting. Out go the expensive columnists, features and correspondents to be seamlessly replaced by more agency re-writes.
After all it would still be excellent value. It would be free for goodness sake. How could any reasonable person complain.
If the Evening Standard were to turn into any old, perfectly decent free newspaper Lebedev would have lost a large sum of money for nothing – even if the new free Standard managed to turn a small, pointless profit.