The Economics of the Daily Mail

Generali

http://popb#tch.com/articles/Profits_Of_Doom.html?utm_content=bufferf66f5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Replace the # with an i.

THE FIGURES
We’ll do a bit of back-of-the-envelope mathematics to thrash out this theory, so here are some of the more pertinent numbers and what they mean.
160,000,000 - mailonline is currently racking up about 160 million unique users a month. What this means in actual, practical terms is that 160 million different electronic devices are logging on to at least one mailonline webpage each month. That’s either 160 million different people all using one device apiece; or, more likely, a smaller number of people logging in from their office computer, their home computer, their smartphone and possibly other tablets and laptops over the course of a month. (Still, the same is true of all website stats and, relatively speaking, this number is huge.)
26,000,000 - Every day, mailonline registers about 26 million page impressions. Simply put, you click on a dailymail.co.uk link, it registers as one page impression. It is a tiny bit more complicated than that - but, again, the same holds true for every other website in the world, so these figures remain incredibly impressive.
20 - This (in pounds sterling) is the lowest advertised rate for advertising on mailonline. Their ratecard is here. Twenty pounds is the cpm or ‘cost per mille’. In layperson speak, this means that twenty quid will get your ad to appear on one thousand pages.
41,000,000 - 41 million is the revenue that Daily Mail & General Trust announced that mailonline made (in pounds sterling) last year to the end of September. That is not £41 million in profit; that is £41 million in revenue.

Read on McDuff and damned be he that cries, "Enough".

the_flying_pig

meanwhile,

Thrugelmir

What will Brussels ban next? Cars painted black as they are a greater danger on the road?

Generali

Are there many vacuum cleaners available over 1600W? I used to work for Rumbelows and IIRC there were very few.

michaels

According to the BBC 4 out 5 Which 'Best Buys' were over 1600w...If your vacuum uses 25% less power but you have to vacuum for 50% longer to get the desired level of cleanliness how much has the environment benefited? Are we as consumers too stupid to factor energy costs into our buying decisions?

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

According to the BBC 4 out 5 Which 'Best Buys' were over 1600w...If your vacuum uses 25% less power but you have to vacuum for 50% longer to get the desired level of cleanliness how much has the environment benefited? Are we as consumers too stupid to factor energy costs into our buying decisions?

Less carpets in houses in Europe.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Are there many vacuum cleaners available over 1600W? I used to work for Rumbelows and IIRC there were very few.

Theres loads. Though won't be many soon.

Like michaels states, alright banning them for energy purposes, but if it just takes longer, your not saving any energy, possibly using more.

But that's the EU for you.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

According to the BBC 4 out 5 Which 'Best Buys' were empirical 600w...If your vacuum uses 25% less power but you have to vacuum for 50% longer to get is nhe desired level of cleanliness how much has the environment benefited? Are we as consumers too stupid to factor energy costs into our buying decisions?

It's a good point but does that actually happen? Is your point borne out by empirical evidence?

Perhaps the EU's is.

PasturesNew

Also, if you're vacuuming for longer, you're shortening the lifespan of each vacuum, requiring more energy to make another underpowered one for you to buy ... which then needs packaging and transporting.

Generali

PasturesNew wrote: »

Also, if you're vacuuming for longer, you're shortening the lifespan of each vacuum, requiring more energy to make another underpowered one for you to buy ... which then needs packaging and transporting.

True, if you are. That's a point which I don't think has actually been established.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres loads. Though won't be many soon.

Like michaels states, alright banning them for energy purposes, but if it just takes longer, your not saving any energy, possibly using more.

But that's the EU for you.

I reckon they might have done the sums first? It's not just about today either - manufacturers now have to innovate to ensure new designs have more cleaning power per watt.

It's happened with CO2 emission limits on cars. My two litre diesel today is higher powered with lower emissions than the equivalent agricultural type diesel of a few years ago. Far more reliable too.

EDIT I forgot my anecdotal. My boss has just bought three vacuum cleaners to beat the ban. He's going to store them with his lifetimes supply of incandescent light bulbs.

Good old Daily Mail - they know just which buttons to push to keep that hit rate up.