Almost a quarter of a million pounds was spent by a London council on freelancers and agency staff to produce its newsletter last year.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich also revealed the net cost of producing its weekly Greenwich Time magazine was more than £100,000 in 2013/14.
The figures have come to light after a Freedom of Information request, which also confirmed the authority received a total of £700,323.58 in advertising revenue from the publication during the last financial year.
A total of 105,000 copies are distributed across the borough each week.
Greenwich was one of five local authorities order to scale back the frequency of publication for its official newsletter by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles in November.
However, as reported on HTFP yesterday, Lambeth Council has already defied Mr Pickles by continuing to publish its monthly Lambeth Talk magazine.
The FoI reply from Greenwich revealed that the authoity spent £218,537 on freelances to help produce the newsletter during 2013/14.
However the net production and distribution cost had decreased from £105,375 in 2012-13 to £102,001 in 2013/14 and the amount spent on freelance editorial services by the authority had decreased year on year since 2010.
In all, 5,250,000 copies of Greenwich Time were distributed during 2013-14.
The authority has yet to respond to HTFP’s request for a comment.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
So I’m confused. There are a lot of figures flying around all over the place in this piece. Did the Greenwich newsletter make a decent profit?
Report this comment
Those figures surely show the initiative was a success.
Report this comment
Good thing surely, with so many hacks out of work, that freelances get some income? Well done council.
Report this comment
Curse these evil Town Hall Pravdas – they are probably employing decent, motivated journalists, have reached advertisers and their audience – and they made a profit!
Typical Commie tricks.
What’s their number?
Report this comment
So they pay their staff a decent wage and make a fantastic profit?
I’m not in favour of town hall Pravdas but maybe they could pop over to JP HAQ at some point and give them a few tips?
Report this comment
“the net production and distribution cost had decreased from £105,375 in 2012-13 to £102,001 in 2013/14″
I read that to indicate the council made a £100,000 loss on it despite £700,000 in advertising revenue. Is that right? Could you clarify please HTFP?
Report this comment
Of course much of the profit may just be from the statutory notices, which simply shifts figures from one column on the ledger to another – with them no longer appearing anywhere in the local newspaper’s profit/loss account at all.
Report this comment
So, nearly half a million quid made… journalists employed, printers, delivery people etc etc
Maybe someone should give free newspapers a go…
Report this comment
lyetownmax, yes that is certainly my understanding. Nowhere in our story does it say that Greenwich Time made a “profit.”
Report this comment
Paul – I read it as net production and distribution costs were £102,001 in 2013-14.
£218,537 was spent on freelances and agency staff in 2013/14 and advertising income was £700,323.58.
Which surely makes a profit of £379,785.58?
Report this comment
Personally read that as the income was £700k and net cost was £100k, therefore expenditure must have been £800k (of which £250k was on freelance writers).
I haven’t ever seen a copy of the Greenwich Time so can’t say if it is worth that kind of an outlay. However our council’s equivalent costs more than double that figure and while some of the information is useful (dates of key events, elections etc) other bits are awful or hopelessly biased. In the past year I have read a page feature called ‘How to catch a bus’ and another about significant investment in street lighting which failed to mention that half of the area is in darkness because street lights have been switched off to save money. These council magazines have a place, but there simply isn’t the content to justifying them being paid for by the taxpayer monthly in my opinion.
Report this comment
SeasideJourno is right.
Report this comment
Paul and SeasideJourno – gotcha now – thanks.
All those years as finance director of several large newspaper groups apparently taught me nothing! It is a shame no one else on the various boards I served on ever pointed out I was getting into a right old pickle with my net and gross!
Report this comment