I disagree; I’m sure that Guardianistas would be just as interested in why the right-wing media is evil and so on. More seriously, the simple fact that the Guardian doesn’t splash knife crime stories in that way at the moment.

Thomas,

This would be a supplement, initially online and potentially. In the same way that you do not specifically pay for G2 and you do not specifically pay for Comment is Free, you would not specifically pay for Guardian London.

Sunny,

My thoughts exactly!

Mike,

See Sunny’s comments; this wouldn’t work as a start-up enterprise. If you look at the extended article over at davecole.org/blog, I mention the London Daily News that failed because of a price war with the Evening Standard.

xD.

Is it a profitable economic model to continually chop the market into smaller and smaller segments, or is it possible to appeal to new readers by offering a fresh, new and different perspective.

Ditto voting patterns.

I think there’s a possibility of attracting people who want to know what’s happening with London but buy other papers for national/international news. And on top of that, nothing wrong with checking another website.

The trick would be to find a way that builds a community while incorporating a wide range of info that can be produced / linked to cheaply. And while at the same time working closely with the blogs. Don’t know if the Guardian can pull it off though – most of their subsites are pretty standard. In fact none of the newspapers have yet managed to think past a newspaper model when it comes to online activities.

As for a business plan – I think it would be commercially viable only if an existing org can leverage its existing audience and existing output, while adding more to it an minimal cost (at least until the money flows in fast). Hence, I think as a commercial operation it would be difficult to build from scratch.

Though, someone with an ad background could find new revenue sources, and I’d be happy to think more about the content side of things… to produce a business pan for them

I suspect that if people were willing to do the footwork to produce and regularly update political profiles of the London boroughs, say, that it would then be easy enough to find a home on the Net for them – but that is a different animal from a campaigning journal, on- or off-line.

I repeat: if someone were to write a business plan and it was viable, I’m sure the funding could be found. Say it needed £150,000 to get off the ground (should be enough for an on-line venture using copy written by freelances) – well, £1 gets you £2 from the Co-op bank (or any other bank) so you need £50,000 in share capital (I presume a company limited by guarantee model). That’s, say, a thousand individuals, TU branches etc at £50 each. Then it would need a good editor with a nose for a scoop or three.

If you don’t like my sums, produce your own!

The point of a Guardian London rather than a London Guardian is twofold. Firstly, as I mentioned in a longer version of this article over at my place (davecole.org/blog), the last attempt to directly compete with the ES was Bob Maxwell’s London Daily News; it failed. By using a different model – a supplement to an existing newspaper – it alters the game and makes it harder for the ES to do what it did before (bring back the Evening News and launch a price war). Secondly, the Guardian has existing, successful sub-brands – Guardian World, Guardian America and, of course, Comment is Free.

xD.

I’d prefer a return to a Manchester Guardian, with a London Guardian to complement it. Or perhaps more regional variety with local inserts as per the German newspaper distribution model.

If people think the idea has legs, what would the next step be? Are there any Guardian staff reading this?

Aaron,
Rob,

You’ve made me think of something else. I wouldn’t have thought that most people outside London are particularly interested in what goes on inside the Smoke; however, the size of the London market and the importance of the city mean that is has to be covered in the nationals, there being no effective London outlet. By having a section that concentrates on London, it might be possible to remove the cursory coverage that bores people outside and doesn’t satisfy people inside.

Mike,

At least initially, it would not be possible to do anything other than an online service. That is largely why I thought of the Guardian; CiF is an existing, online community. Creating the readership for a totally new product, particularly online, is damned hard.

Sally,

I’m not sure I agree; London is a valuable demographic. Moreover, ‘liberal’ does not equate with ‘poor’; there are plenty of tofu-munching, bleeding-heart liberals with money to spend out there. They could be an attractive audience for readers.

xD.

Then again, if its run by the Guardian it doesn’t need many readers to survive as it is subsidised by magazines promoting CO2 emitting gaz guzzlers and tax avoiding private equity owners.

“I’d like to propose Guardian London

Its primary issues could be City Hall, including the Mayor, Assembly and executive arms; London beyond zones one and two; transport; the boroughs; the City; and informing people about the reality of London today. Over an eight-week cycle, there could be information on the council politics of the different boroughs, grouped as four at a time.”

I don’t know which parts of London have decent local papers anymore – precious few, I suspect. Here in W2 we don’t have any local paper, decent or otherwise!

As to a business partner, I’m not sure that it really fits in with GMG – what about Archant (who publish the Ham & High among other things)?

What I’m thinking of is something like “The First Post” so perhaps someone should talk to Felix Dennis! (Actually, it might just be his sort of thing…)

The less the rest of us have to read about Boris, the better.

*claps*

Sounds like a plan. Of course those in the provinces would argue that all the broadsheets are heavily London-centric!

All the more reason for giving Londoners their own paper. The less the rest of us have to read about Boris, the better.

But it is true that none of London’s papers, nor the national dailies, do civic reporting half-as-well as they should. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that London has crap newspapers, the rest of the country – bar a few notable exceptions, shares its suffering.