The twenty-first century tabloid

The Guardian changed its print edition to a tabloid format last month. Incidentally, I was on a placement there the very day the change came into effect. That meant navigating through a packed office, an extensive re-orientation for staff, and, pleasingly, free on-brand souvenirs. Beyond the Who Moved My Cheese-esque atmosphere, I wanted to know what exactly this change meant for the Guardian, why it had to be taken (although I think we all had an inkling) and how on earth journalism seems to remain so inelastic in the face of so many challenges. I suppose the long and short of it is that, well, it doesn’t. Running a newspaper, like running any other company, necessitates making a profit – at least in the long run. How can an organisation that holds itself to such (supposedly) high ethical and moral standards succeed in this sort of environment? Let’s find out.

Guardian News and Media, abbreviated to GNM, the company responsible not only for the Guardian but the Observer, Guardian Books and many another side project, has been in dire financial straits for some time. For the financial year ending April 2017, it filed a loss of £44.7 million. This loss, however, was marked by being far smaller than that the year prior - £68.7 million. It’s also worth bearing in mind that these figures aren’t quite so dire relatively speaking. Newspapers across the UK are adept at “dumping”, leaving massive piles of newspapers in supermarkets or negotiating offers that effectively enable them to increase circulation by selling to consumers at theoretical zero cost. The newspapers make the money back on the increased advertising revenue from an ostensibly increased circulation. However, it raises interesting questions. What state must the print media be in if they have to literally give away their service to make money?

Of course, there’s other options for breaking even. The Times offers a streamlined online service based on subscription that facilitates ease of use and is advertising-free. Other newspapers, such as The Telegraph or the Financial Times, offer more tiers that still enable the average web user to access news. The Independent, having abandoned its print edition in 2016, now maintains itself purely through advertising. The Guardian’s model is a mixed one. Its online enterprise is immensely popular, among the top 15 news sites worldwide. Income is received through donations, advertising, sponsorships and, of course, the continued existence of a print edition. But why now, why tabloid?

The transition to the tabloid format was preceded by adopting the Berliner in 2005 under former editor Alan Rusbridger. This choice carried massive economic costs, given the necessity to build new printing sites in London and Manchester, which are now being sold off. Around £80 million went towards the initiative, geared towards moving away from the antiquated broadsheet but not outright accepting the tabloid hegemony; a certain desire to remain unique, radical, and innovative.

But, of course, a newspaper format that’s interesting simply because it’s the midpoint between two other formats isn’t really that interesting at all. It could be argued that the recent transition to tabloid was a foregone conclusion, and that’s probably true; but it just means all the money spent on those printing sites, now due for redevelopment, was for nought. This makes it harder to break even, the entire reason for transitioning to tabloid, and a task GNM expect to complete by 2019.

I hope the next stage of the paper Guardian's evolution isn't no paper Guardian. If the Independent's experience is any indication, that way lies trouble.

— Ido Vock (@idvck) January 15, 2018

Despite this very conscious money-saving effort, the work culture at the Guardian seems to run as before. Colleagues reported little to no change in their day to day working patterns, almost as if they expected more. Daily briefings remained the same, the atmosphere remained relatively relaxed, and the free coffee remained satisfactory. The hanging shadow of job cuts, while as yet unrealised, is the only real indication of a change of operations. All this seems hard to fathom in the context of a large organisation that exercises a certain control over the national – if not the international – conversation.

This relative continuation of the 21^st century status quo at the Guardian occurs in the context of massive, overwhelming changes in how and what we consume. Not only print but television programmes are second to Twitter, Facebook and even Snapchat. Most news organisations – especially those that concentrate on comment and policy – rely on a small, tightknit team, like that of the New Statesman; if the recent cuts at Buzzfeed are to be any guide, the size of these teams isn’t necessarily growing anytime soon, even as internet media eclipses the news stand. Large teams simply aren’t a necessity in the age of wire copy and outsourcing, and the impossibly thin profit margins at work encourage further downsizing.

So, the medium of journalism is at a peculiar crossroads, the old and the new coalescing in the face of a milliard ways of broadcasting and delivering news. The furnace of competition runs even fiercer, and it remains to be seen if The Guardian – if not all its tabloid friends – can stand the heat.