[Joe8Bit]

I'm interested in this line "Many media outlets are increasingly reliant on money from betting companies" as I'd be interested to know how reliant the Guardian was on this revenue. Is stopping this type of advertising a big impact on their top line?

I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.

[iso1631]

I doubt Guardian is as reliant as say Sky is. Betting is pretty much the primary driver of revenue for their sports coverage, and indeed football as a whole. It seems half of premier teams have some form of betting company on their shirt -- often aimed at those in the far east

Although I see that's on the way out

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65260002

And good riddance too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/65601190

[fredley]

Sky as in Sky Bet?

https://skybet.com/

[Mindwipe]

Sky Bet is a different company to Sky, they set it up and sold it along with the branding rights.

But obviously it does create a perception of conflict of interest...

[zzbn00]

I don't know about Guardian specifically, but marketing spend is a big part of what the gambling companies do: e.g. GVC spent about £500million on marketing in 2019 https://entaingroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GVC-2019-...

[brookst]

Judging people and companies on motivations rather than actions is kind of a losing game. You can never really know for sure, and it’s easy to speculate in every direction.

[autoexec]

It seems inevitable since even when actions are the same, intent really does matter. An adult inviting a child into their home is an action that happens every day, but intent is pretty important.

We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.

[brookst]

> We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.

Totally disagree, especially for companies. Companies are usually thousands of people. Any action was probably hotly debated, and some agreed and some opposed. It's just silly to treat a company like an individual person who has good motivations and bad motivations.

You do you, but I don't think making up motivations and then acting like they're true makes anyone less easy to manipulate.

[carlosjobim]

If you run a successful blog or similar, you will start getting offers from gambling companies wanting to purchase advertising and articles. These are legitimate offers and they pay well - even if your content is very local or narrow, such as citizen journalism. Gambling is an extremely profitable business, and they want as many customers as possible. Expect their advertising to only grow.

[topicseed]

The Telegraph seems to get quite a bit of revenue from their gambling content.

An example is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/betting/casino-guides/blackjack/

It's just odd to have this on a trusted national newspaper. Feels very out of place.

[nervysnail]

Depravity.

[lost_tourist]

Gambling is depravity? What? Has HN suddenly become a puritanical news site or something?

[nervysnail]

Nay, you are wrong to think that I am a Puritan. It is just that the website is horrible and I used 'depravity' in a humorous sense.

[rvz]

They won't tell you, or give an exact figure, other than this nonsense:

> Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income.

Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure.

Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.

[zztop44]

The Australian operation of the Guardian has said recently that donations from readers are now more than 50% of the revenue. And they’re trying to increase that percentage further. Not sure about their UK or US operations.

[wizofaus]

That is quite phenomenal really - I don't think any other widely-used service (other than actual charities) operates on that basis. Though I don't really see my monthly payment (a whole $10, mind you) as a donation. But their spiel that convinces readers to do so is well-written, and hooked me in. Well that, and just a look at how bad the quality of most other online news sources was, seemingly particularly the ones operated by profitable companies.

[mnd999]

I pay for the Guardian and I think it’s easily worth the money.

[qwytw]

> Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.

There is hardly anything better left though and the Guardian is one of the very few independent major publications left which is something.

> begging even more aggressively

So you prefer a paywall or them being reliant on gambling ads, maybe a rich owner who definitely has no agenda buying it would be the best option?

[permo-w]

also The Guardian's sports coverage is second to none, including The Athletic

[pjc50]

All UK newspapers are partisan, mostly to the right wing.

[tclancy]

"When you wake up to the fact / That your paper is Tory / Just remember: / There are two sides to every story"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMTjJMytpc