And how do I know this fact because I read it in the Guardian online for free. The Guardian and The Times are both facing the same cataclysmic decline in sales. The Times reacted by trying to claw back as much money as possible from its most popular area by charging to access the site. This strategy truly is trying to close the door after the horse has bolted, or trying to squeeze the genie back in the bottle, any number of futile similes to state the fact, it's too late.



The Guardian pursues the concept of free content to its most logical conclusion. Instead of just providing content for free to their readers, the Guardian is now generating free content through deals such as Baby Barista. BB still creates original content for his own blog but now also has to blog on behalf of The Guardian, providing them with high quality editorial for nada.

If you look at how the Guardian has developed its online offering in recent years it has started investing heavily in blogs and contributions from its ordinary readers. This strategy is much like the Huff Po's off the bus strategy which encouraged citizen journalists to report on the 2008 election for free. The Huff Po effectively galvanised an army of free journalists for their site. (Interestingly enough this army actually broke some important stories throughout the campaign). If the Guardian were able to pull off such a feat, to create a steady stream of free, high quality journalism, they will be able to cut costs and increase readership in one fell swoop.

In the meantime, both The Times and The Guardian are haemoraging money. While The Times, in a self-defeating gesture is trying to change their reader's reading habits, The Guatdian has seen the potential of this new world of free content and is changing the way it plays the game accordingly.